Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > On the issue of Ausir and Porter21's extra user rights

The issue[]

Many of you know of our inactivity policy found on FW:ADMIN. I will post it verbatim below:

In the event that an administrator or moderator has been inactive for an extended period of time, they will have their user rights removed by the bureaucrats and restored by a community vote upon a return to constructive editing.
  • Definition of inactive is six months of a lack of editing.
  • Definition of inactive for rights removal is nine months of a lack of editing.

In accordance with the policy, our bureaucrat team has been removing extra user rights from users once they have been inactive for nine months or more. However, there have been two exceptions to this rather consistent enforcement of the policy. Specifically, I am referring to the extra rights held by User:Ausir and User:Porter21.

For those of you who do not know, Ausir and Porter were both bureaucrats on the wiki before the Split (which occurred in late 2011). Ausir was also the founder of The Vault (our predecessor) and is recognised as such on FW:ABOUT. Porter, while not one of the earliest users, was a technical expert who built much of the wiki's templates and meta-templates, along with many other features.

While they have certainly been invaluable contributors, we cannot allow them to be beyond policy. Ausir has been blocked by Wikia for quite some time now, so it would be impossible for him to use the extra rights here anyway. Furthermore, even at The Vault, both users have been largely inactive as of late...

For Ausir, I am also proposing a special "founder" section on FW:ADMIN to recognise him as being the founder of what eventually became Nukapedia.

Despite understandable reasons behind the reluctance in removing their extra user rights, I would ask that the same standard be applied to all inactive extra user rights holders. Their contributions will in no way be discredited by such a move, and the integrity of our policy enforcement will be upheld. --Skire (talk) 23:32, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Comments[]

Ausir is banned from wikia and Porter no longer uses this wiki either. There is no reason they should retain them, especially since there has been so much talk about inactive admins recently. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 23:38, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I would say Ausir deserves a special section. If anyone would disagree, it would be because of disloyalty to Wikia. Regardless of hosting, he is the reason we are here, and is a good guy as well. As far as Porter, though one of our best, deserves the same treatment as any other admin/bureaucrat. Here's hoping that he comes back some day ;-; --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 23:40, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the special section, and strongly believe that Porter should also get a mention at least. -- GOTW User | Talk 23:44, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
While Porter has done a lot for us, he is a) not a founder of this wiki at any point b) no longer on this wiki. We cannot mention every good user we ever had and lost just to be nice. Ausir deserves to be credited as founder.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 23:46, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
I got to agree with Jasper, Ausir is the founder of what is now known as Nukapedia and should be recognized as such. As for the issue of Porter, while he was a great contributor and has done a lot for this place (granted I'm basing this off of page history), I see no reason to give special acknowledgment for every "useful" user, no matter how special the case. --MountHail (talk) 02:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  • Porter: I wish he were still with us, but he has been entirely inactive since the split, and unfortunately he does need to be held to the same standards as everyone else here in accordance to the policies set by both our community and leadership. Should he ever decide to return, I can't imagine there would be much resistance if he decides to re-apply for rights.
  • Ausir: Ausir will never be able to come back. Because of this, he no longer needs his rights, and keeping him up there as an inactive Admin will only seek to confuse editors looking for help. Especially since Ausir was so well known with many outside of our community even knowing of him. Adding him to a unique founder section is the best course of action, I believe, along with his transient rights being removed. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:41, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with Jasper, however, while I agree with everything TwoBears said as well, there still isn't really any reason for Ausir to have them. He's mentioned enough on the About pages, and given enough credit and attention. He's permanently banned for life from Wikia, so he won't ever be able to use the rights again. User OfficialLolGuy  OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  23:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Jasp, Ausir has ceased to be relevant for the entirety of the time I've had an account here. Enclavesymbol 03:18, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he'll never use them again, and I see giving him a founder tag/commemoration as more of an ornamental gesture. I liked Ausir and still do, and although a lot of the new guys never worked with him he had this place's best interests at heart. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 23:46, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

What about a past administrator/bureaucrat/etc. section? User OfficialLolGuy  OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  23:47, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be opposed to that except at one time or another there are dozens of ex-admins. The rights used to be handed out in the beginning, not as significant as they are today. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 23:50, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
I can perhaps work Porter a mention too, but we cannot possibly mention every past admin/bureaucrat. Not only is it impractical, it is unnecessary over-embellishment of a position meant for service, not recognition. --Skire (talk) 23:50, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Im going to be controversial and actually ask if Ausir is the founder of the wiki? Now most of us here agree with the "theory" that the split between here and the vault was not unlike cellular division. However, the Vault has made it very clear that they see us as something completely different... A creature that was born when wikia "copied" "their" wiki.

If that theory is correct, then the true "founders" of this wiki was everyone who stayed after Ausir posted the "We're leaving" message. Agent c (talk) 23:50, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

The point of the admin/mod/bcrat page is so people can find the people with powers if and when they need them. It is not a page to remember those who once held rights. On top of this it would be difficult to remember everyone who ever had rights (and would be a long list that clutters the page if we did) and would have the greats AreYouGunnaEatThatNuke?, CrazySam10 and BillyOcean well known for spamming articles, deleting the chat and banning everyone respectively. This is a lot of stuff to jump through to credit people and doesn't really amount to anything. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 23:51, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

@Agent c Very interesting point, and one I admittedly didn't consider upon writing this forum. Although The Vault sees us as a completely separate entity, born through the illegitimate replication of "their" content, I still believe we (The Vault and Nukapedia) are two products of the same entity. The pre-Split Vault became the post-Split Vault as well as Nukapedia. So I would personally call Ausir the founder of what became known as the Nukapedia we have today. --Skire (talk) 23:55, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Danny here. We didn't build all of this, and to say that we are completely separate from the Vault and to not acknowledge its past would be arrogance. Especially if we choose to ignore Porter; everything we, and a myriad other wikis, are built on comes from him. These two are not run of the mill, so let's not try and 'extend' the issue as always. Focus on what Danny has actually asked you. Of course we shouldn't honour every admin, and this sets no precedent for it. The slippery slope theory is a logical fallacy, stop using it. -- GOTW User | Talk 01:09, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
"What about a past administrator/bureaucrat/etc. section?" Most comments about having to mention all admins are a reply to this, this forum isn't just about what Danny has to say, but what other people say in the comments. We are allowed to talk to each other, yes? And who gets to chose who matters enough in terms of the wiki to get a super secret special mention?
Yes, Porter did a lot of the work with templates an' that but that was a long time ago and users such as Gunny have worked on them too. Porter did a great job but I don't see why we should erect a "HE CODED STUFF" statue in the middle of the site. He's gone, it's over. Porter and Ausir are not gods and neither is with us anymore anyway. The point of the Admin/Mod/Bcrat page is so we know who holds power on our wiki. Ausir is already credited as founder on the the page covering the history of this wiki and that is all that matters, at the end of the day.
You can acknowledge the wiki's past without shouting about it at the top of your lungs, you know. And if you're so proud of our history then maybe you should think about our other founder, if you even know their name.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:57, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Good point Jasper. I was about to post something to that effect with that persons name... but I dont think I will now, your post has greater effect without his name. Agent c (talk) 03:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
*Drops mic*. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 03:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
It's not quite the same thing there. While DarkUnderlord was a co-founder, he didn't stick around in the way Ausir did... Perhaps a bit on the compromise side, we could have a link on FW:ADMIN to FW:ABOUT, where we could also mention Porter? --Skire (talk) 03:15, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

(I would be in favor of something like that. I do think the contributions of past bureaucrats are of note for the wiki. With our history of admins, I don't think listing all of them would be warranted. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:21, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

And Porter didn't stick around post split. And if Ausir had stuck around there never would have been a split. Of sticking around is what matters most then neither of those take the prize. And if acknowledging our roots is what this is about then DUL should be acknowledged. Unless this is just some kind of nostalgia-fuled-fan-boy-suck-up, in which case fell free to do whatever you want. Neither Porter nor Ausir are in a position to use their rights, nor will either return to the wiki. So I think we can all agree that they should have their rights removed. As for crediting then, they should not be credited in the space reserved for users with additional user rights, as the are NOT users, let alone users with additional rights. Our founder's are already credited on the page for the history of this wiki, so it is not needed to c credit Ausir elsewhere. Add for Porter, yes he helped build the wiki but so did everyone here. The work he did for other wiki's is irrelevant here and, since his departure not only have we managed to survive but people have done his job for him, maybe not as well as he could have but if he stayed on this wiki we wouldn't even need this discussion. Porters work was good but we don't need to say " and a bloke called Porter was also there and coded things". We haven't credited Porter before now and I see no reason why we should when performing his long overdue rights removal. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 03:34, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And here I thought I was supposed to be the blunt one. ;) I believe Jasper has summed up all of my concurrent thoughts on this entire matter. I support everything that he has currently said. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:37, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I change my mind on the founder section on our Administration page. Now that I know there is an about section for our wiki that details Ausir's part in our wiki's founding, I am content. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:01, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
"Unless this is just some kind of nostalgia-fuled-fan-boy-suck-up, in which case fell free to do whatever you want." What part of my joining the wiki essentially after the Split did you get that idea from? I am only trying to suggest a simple way to give some credit (beyond the rather obscure FW:ABOUT page) to the users whose own voluntary work built the very foundations of what we see here today. DarkUnderlord being added on there is not something I am against, per se. I would advise avoiding such asinine dismissals of my intentions. --Skire (talk) 03:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
The history of this wiki belongs on the page made for the history of this wiki. Of people wish to find out who the founders wetre they can go to that page. Plastering AUSIR MADE THIS WIKI somewhere just so people see it is pointless, what does it matter who made this wiki? It was shaped by the thousands of users, not a couple of founders and a code guy. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 03:49, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Well perhaps it is because I am a student of history that this seems abhorrent to me, but as 'standing on the shoulders of giants' obviously means nothing here, I'm not going to waste my time getting into another one of these pointless arguments where people can satisfy their digitally-enlarged egos over the unimportant issues. My opinions are thus:
  • We should remove their rights, as, like has been pointed out by everyone, they're unlikely to ever return to use them, and Ausir certainly cannot. Of course, this is the salient issue, and I'm not going to continue to help bury it in yet another forum where people argue over the smaller details in order to satisfy their desire to feel important. "*drops mic*"; get over yourself.
  • I believe that Porter deserves a mention, and you'll notice I never said where. He was massively important, and whether you acknowledge that or not doesn't diminish the fact. His loyalty had been to the Vault long before we arrived here, and I completely understand his decision. I don't see how that impacts what he did for us. Also, just because you haven't credited him, doesn't mean others haven't. Maybe if he wasn't so private we would have done so long ago, and I resolutely believe that formal recognition is long overdue. The same could be said of Jspoel in the future; he helped out, but a damn sight more than anyone else has and I would hope he would be given a mention as well.
  • There is a difference between being a fanboy, and respecting someone.
As an addendum, I am more than aware of DarkUnderlord ta. -- GOTW User | Talk 03:59, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
I "argue over the smaller details" because those are the parts that matter most. The big topic is usually simple if you ignore the small stuff. You start a forum on this site because you want to here peoples views, correct? Well then don't be sad when rose views conflict with your own. The little things are what effects the impact of the big picture and a free what I think are the most important. In sorry that I thought pointing out that we had another founder none of you card to mention was a big deal, next time I'll just stick to whatever the forum crater suggests because stating the small stuff and disagreeing is just an attempt to boost my ego. And if you're going to play the ego card you can't also play the "oh look at this important subject I study" one, they kinda conflict. You could study interpretative dance for I care, my opinion stands - everyone on this wiki is responsible for building this wiki, not just a couple of guys who didn't even stick around. I respect Ausir. I like Ausir. I just don't see the reason to put his name in lights and tell everyone he made this wiki, because, sure he did make this wiki but every last editor made this wiki what it is today. The point of a community driven site like this isn't too lord one or two big name people over everyone else and treat them as devine. It doesn't Mayer who pressed the "create wiki" button. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 04:25, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
I understand a lot of what you're saying, Ci. Ausir and Porter were huge parts of what has made Nukapedia the wiki that it is today. But Jasper is also right in that this is a wiki, and it was not made for the individual, but for the collective whole. Ausir deserves at least being noted in the creation of our wiki. But aside from that, he was merely another contributor here, as well as Porter. And now they're gone and we've had to move on from them onto new generations of editors and content. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:32, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

There's standing on the shoulders of giants... and then there's standing on the shoulders of giants you selectively notice. I've had a look at the talk page of those users noted to be on the wiki in 2005 (all of whom show no edits as they didn't edit post DAC... and its interesting that their contributions, including some of the major foundations of the look and feel of the wiki are not noticed remembered at all.

The about section is the place for it, and following this I've changed my outlook some. It should be expanded to include the history of the Fallout wiki project pre wiki days (like in the other place), post wiki not just be some memorial to Ausir, but commemorate other significant users who had a major impact... I think that we had too much of a cult of personality there pre split and have no wish to revisit that. Agent c (talk) 04:36, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, seem to have twinged something there. Sorry. Do you really think what matters most is whether Porter gets a mention in the 'about' section? I'll bet you have all kinds of problems with procrastination too. I hardly think that giving them a mention there is 'putting their names in lights'; if anything its storing them in a back cupboard so that someone with an interest in the history of the site can stumble across it and understand a few of the people who have put in more time and effort than most. You keep saying how thousands built the site, and I agree with you, but Porter was the one who gave us the tools to do that. Something I cannot understand that you think is not noteworthy.
Lastly, I'm not being hypocritical at all; you've just twisted something that I've said in order to try and claim that. I don't think it's any more important that any other subject, and less important than a hell of a lot: my point was that perhaps the importance that I place on history is leading to our difference of opinion. If I was going to flaunt anything it would be the university I study at hahaha :p
I couldn't agree more C that the about section is the place for it, and I myself considered many times expanding it. In fact I probably still have some of the research I did into writing a more cohesive history there, Perhaps that is something that could be discussed, separately. -- GOTW User | Talk 04:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Well you're allowed to make up reasons I do what I do so I s should be allowed to do the same to you. Ausir already has a mention, but that apparently isn't good enough because it's on a page nobody vists.Pretty sure if You were really interested you'd find places that day "Porter made this thing". Hey, this forum says that now, so is that enough of a mention? Of looking at the small stuff is a bad thing then sorry, but I'd rather make sure all the LEDs work before I ship something off, and not just check the frame. I don't think that if Porter gets a mention is THE most important thing but it IS up for discussion so I thought we should, ya know, discuss it? You must think it's as important as o do to argue about it with me, else you'd just leave me to it. Just looking at the base idea and saying " yep, seems okay" is an awful system. You need to get down and make sure every little bit works, else the whole system is ruined. I won't ignore things I don't agree with because you deem it to small. If porter getting a mention is to small to worry about them I assume this is the last we'll hear about it and he'all just go without mention? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 04:59, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, these are barely even beginning to make sense. Great first 'sentence', but at least you start as you mean to go on. Right, okay, I'll see if I can reply.

  1. Yes, I believe Ausir has enough of a mention, even if like Chad suggests the page could do with some expansion.
  2. No, I don't believe this forum is enough of a mention, and I see no harm in mentioning him and others like him on the about page
  3. No, I don't think that the small stuff is irrelevant, rather I think that it is shifted into focus in order so that people can use it as the basis of petty, egotistical wars; being contrary for the sole reason of having that debate that you so crave but are too socially inept to have in real life. And well, it worked, didn't it? How on earth does it make any difference to you if an obscure mention is included on the wiki? Out of all of what Danny wrote, that's the bit you pick up on. And it's the same story with every forum; a minor change is discussed and it gets blown out of proportion for no reason other than petty self-gratification. If you genuinely were opposed to someone's achievements for our betterment being recognised, which I don not believe you are, then you are a strange sort indeed. And I dare say if you continue to hold such an attitude that you are walking down a dark road to the realms of obscurity.
  4. Yes, I do think it is important that history is recognised.
  5. As is evident by this back and forth, I'm not simply looking at this and going "yep, seems okay".
  6. Indeed you do need to ensure the bits are working, but I hardly think mentioning Porter in one sentence on one of over 20000 pages is going to 'ruin the system'.
  7. Good, I'm glad you don't ignore things you disagree with. If only you had a good reason for disagreeing...
  8. Well, it seems it might very well be that way as Danny has undermined me on your TP I see.

-- GOTW User | Talk 05:15, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

So we're removing their rights due to a formality?
Am I the only one who thinks this discussion a waste of time and effort...? Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 05:53, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yep... and no, most certainly not. -- GOTW User | Talk 06:01, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Matter at Hand[]

As the original proposal here is "do we uphold our rules and remove Ausir and Porter's rights?" I think the answer to that is a pretty clear yes, if not it's time to tee think our inactivity rules.

So I'll ask the question "what exactly is up for discussion here?". Despite what I say above, we have drifted from the actual point of this forum so, instead asking " should we credit Porter?". Seeing as the above discussion is going poorly, it may be worth going back to the big issue.

So, let's get back on track and first ask "Do we uphold our policy" and next ask "Do we create a special founder heading for Ausir on the admins page?" JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 05:25, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

We've all agreed they need to go, so someone submit the request. I point out that no-one is in favour of a special section for Ausir, so what would be the point in posing that as the next question? The question that needs asking is on a grander scale than that: Should we acknowledge the work of people who have done pivotal things in the history of the wiki in FW:About, or should we remove the mention of people from this section as the wiki is, at its fundamental level, a collaborative effort?
And for the record, that is an awful attempt at undermining me. The reason the discussion was going poorly is because you shifted the focus, and this entire section is hypocritical on new levels: 'Despite what I say above' indeed... -- GOTW User | Talk 05:34, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
This wasn't to undermine anyone, as you say I "shifted the focus" so this is just me shifting it back to the original issues raised in this forum. By saying "despite what I say above" I'm admitting that I may be wrong, how is that being a hypocrite?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 13:56, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

( This is not really an issue of importance for me and is fine as it is, to be honest. But since you brought it up I'd say we wait for Fallout 4 and see if maybe Porter returns (very slight chance but who knows). He has unique qualities and I think we should make an exception for him to the inactive rule. Same thing for Ausir being the founder. When Fallout 4 arrives and Porter doesn't return, I would be ok with removing his and Ausir's rights. Enough time has passed then also (it's too soon yet). Ausir can be mentioned as the founder under the Inactive Users header on the administrators page when the time comes. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 19:29, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

While I can certainly see where you're coming from, I cannot agree with the notion that they should be special exceptions to our policy simply because of their respective roles as a co-founder and major contributor to the wiki. We just have to realise that they've most likely moved on in life -- their roles on The Vault have even diminished in recent times. And the inactivity policy has a specific clause for reapplication. If Porter returns when FO4 comes out (whenever that time will be), then he can simply reapply for admin rights, and I can wager he'll have the community's support for obvious reasons. As for Ausir, he can never use his admin rights any more (or even edit, for that matter), which is why instead of removing his rights and leaving it as is, I wanted a mention of him somewhere beyond the FW:ABOUT page... --Skire (talk) 02:32, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Skire; just because someone is important to our history doesn't mean we should overlook our policies - If porter returns he would be likely re-elected without opposition (and Ausir CANNOT return). They are both already long over the removal of rights point and if we don't enforce the inactivity rule for everyone then we should rethink the rule for everyone; they're not a special case anymore and if we're just going to stop applying rules to people then why have the rules to start with? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 15:03, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Compromise[]

Due to Porter's unique role, I believe it would be fitting if we would give him a quick, non-extravagant mention on FW:ABOUT the same way Ausir and DarkUnderlord are mentioned there. This would be all there is to it. --Skire (talk) 03:12, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

There is now a separate discussion on Fallout Wiki talk:About. Please put your thoughts there. Also, the bureaucrats are currently discussing removal of Ausir and Porter21's rights. --Skire (talk) 02:54, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

No one should ever care what I say about anything,[]

but I find the argument that The Vault officially doesn't recognize this place as a sister Wiki pretty damning, and I wonder why homage needs to be paid. Sure, they did a bunch of hard work, but then they crapped in everyone's mouths. I love taking the high road, too (acknowledging hard work is a universally good thing), but so many good team members here stepped up (and went above and beyond) to not only sustain this wiki after the split but, in my opinion, actually make it better (keeping so much fresh and engaging content going so far removed from the release of the last game is no small feat). The amount of traffic here still is pretty fucking impressive, and that has just about zero to do with Porter and Ausir anymore. I'll be the first to remind you that shouldn't listen to anything I have to say, but I find arguments against this - that these aren't exactly glorious heroes who deserve Wiki Sovngarde - pretty convincing. --Person of Refinement (talk) 06:13, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

True. Personally speaking, Agent C is more important to this wiki than Ausir ever was (at least the Ausir I remember), yet we're not making a big deal about glorifying him. Point being there have been plenty of important users before and after the split, so it seems unfair to recognise some yet ignore others. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 09:51, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
The forum discussion here is more or less closed. The point about mentioning certain users has been moved to a discussion on Fallout Wiki talk:About. --Skire (talk) 23:57, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement