Bulbapedia talk:Administrators

Former admins

Should we also have a list of users who were previously admins but no longer are? --Baby G (talk to me) (see my edits) 15:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any? Aren't they all simply on hiatus? --electAbuzzzz 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Mask Man I think is the only one. ^Moldy_Orange 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there are others. Looking through the user rights log, I can see we used to have a whole slew of admins that no longer have powers. Among them: Murgatroyd, Bluchu, Damian Silverblade, Ferret, Tygerofdanyte, Voldarin, LedianX, and Meowth346. I know some of them used to be Bulbagarden staff members, so maybe it had something to do with them leaving the site? Zhen's probably the only one who knows why they are no longer admins. Happy Mask Man I know was inactive on Bulbapedia (but he still frequents the forums). I believe the only ones on hiatus are Zhen and Pie. Jshadias and User142 haven't been active in years, and I think one of them stopped contributing before I even came here. --PAK Man ^Talk 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator help

You should have a page to tell administrators how to do things. For example, I just found this Wikipedia article which outlines a useful method for deleting revisions. Having such resources on one page would be better. --Raijinili 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are admins, they should be smart enough to know what to do...but it's not a bad idea, but don't we have something like that already?--☆Tavisource 04:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Becoming an admin has no such guarantee about intelligence.

2) It's not about being smart, it's about having specific knowledge.

3) If we have such a thing, then where is it? --Raijinili 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

i wasnt aware there was a problem with how weve been doing things. if so, feel free to bring it to our attention. -- MAGNEDETH 05:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Several admins are being added every few months. It would help them to have a resource for their newfound abilities.

I don't mean guidelines for decision-making, but rather references for how to do certain things. --Raijinili 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

it isnt listed here, but, in private, all new admins are given a rundown of their newfound abilities and limitations. -- MAGNEDETH 03:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Some of the admins listed don't have user pages. Therefore, I am making an edit request: For the admins that don't have user pages, don't link to them on this page. Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And why would we do that? --ニョロトノ666 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because they're red links. Didn't I just say it? Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If they decide to make them a userpage, then they have to manually re-edit this list. After all, those red links do not show up in the wanted pages (I think), so does it really matter if we have those links there? UltimateSephiroth ^{(about me · chat · edits)} 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But Urutapu (one of the admins without a page) said that he doesn't really have any interest in User: name space pages. And, User142 has been inactive for a couple of years. Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 21:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Red links still link to the right user, so there's no reason not to link them. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 22:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User142 may get his powers revoked, along with a slew of other inactive admins. --ニョロトノ666 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jioruji Derako: But why link to them if they have no page? Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that link will still take you to the user talk page and contributions. Cipher ^(Talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you were the one who owned this site, Choc. If people wanted something done, they asked you. But, for some reason or another, you decided you didn't want to make yourself a userpage.

Should we not put mention of you anywhere, because doing so would create a red link? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Hmm...good point. Okay. Just forget about the request. Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, how about a different idea? For the ones that don't have user pages, how about we link to their talk pages instead? Chocolate_{((Talk to Me|Look at My Contributions))} 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way, we want to show the admin's username. But you bring up a good point; we should at least have links to everyone's talk pages here, to make it simpler. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is BulbaBot called Evil? -Billy4b2004 09:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Because all robots are inherently evil at their core, and it would be irresponsible of us as fellow humans to not warn other users of this dangerous defect. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 13:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I kinda agree. I know BulbaBot is kinda... um, weird, even sometimes a little weirder than "usual", but does he just have to be called evil? I mean, we are part of a serious place and we see this............... Wow, the admins! Look at everyone's ranks! Ooohh, here's a user named BulbaBot..... he's an evil robot?! Ha, ha, ha. (Laughing Hysterically.) Happened to me is all I'm saying....... and we should change it to something like..... I don't know, what IS his rank, really?--DRAGONBEAST^X 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Bulbabot's contributions. Only trust anything that says "robot adding". ^Maverick_Nate 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boy....... I think I understand, it's almost been five months since I joined...... but there's SO MUCH to know about about Bulbapedia............... and BulbaBot's evilness... *SIGH* I don't know it all yet.......--DRAGONBEAST^X 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Now that I looked at the Bot's edits...... they all say "robot adding"! Gimme a break! What IS with his SUPPOSED evilness?--DRAGONBEAST^X 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, could we have an indication of which admins are active? And secondly if there aren't gonna be any more noms for admin then the link oughta be removed. Ta. — THE TROM — 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, there's somewhat of a list right here.--freezingCOLD _{(page, talk)} 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the table is in need of a slight rework anyway; active, semi-active, and inactive admins could be color-coded or at least sorted, for one. Perhaps an "availability" column would be good too, admins could list off when they're most likely to be online. make the page a little more helpful for people trying to find an admin to warn about vandalism and whatnot. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also been talk of getting rid of the inactive admins. Maybe that would also help. ^Maverick_Nate 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At least put "inactive" in the status part, like whats-his-name did. I forget who, but someone's already marked as that. — THE TROM — 06:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, what I'm going to do here is ask every - and I do mean EVERY - current sysop if they are active, and ask them to mark here if they are. After, say, a week or a month or so, if someone still hasn't responded, then we can mark them as inactive. We can't tell otherwise if the inactive admins are still lurking, but not editing. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 15:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would I be here?

Admin on Bulbanews, but there is no Bulbanews list of admins (yet), so would it go here?--Mew a.k.a. Prmatt11 at 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's bulbanews, not here. ^Maverick_Nate 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the there is no Bulbanews list of admins part.--Mew a.k.a. Prmatt11 at 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My situation

Well, I'm still active, but not for much longer, so what'll I be marked as when I'm gone? Just "Inactive"? Cipher (Talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would assume you'd either be removed, or marked as Hiatus. - Kogoro | Talk to me - 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus or Inactive, I'd say. And it would be great if you could mark it yourself when you leave, unless you already know exactly how active you'll be when it happens... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know when I'm going - once everything I'm working on gets finished, really - so I'll mark myself away when I do go, no worries. =) Cipher (Talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I have no idea at all how to code this place. I could never make heads or tails of it. Is it possible to be listed as an inactive admin but still a user? This is confusing me (figures this would come up when I'm under the weather, eh?). user:Blackjack_Gabbiani

"But still a user"? Anybody who signed up for this thing is a user, even if they got blocked. What do you mean by "still a user"?--freezingCOLD _{(page, talk)} 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, I'll list you as Inactive, and see if I can fit a note in there somewhere. Really, the point of listing active/inactive admins is so if someone needs an admin's help, they know who to go to. I'm guessing you probably wouldn't be the best person to ask for coding help and whatnot? =P

I think what she means, FF, is that as an admin, she's not very active, but she's still technically on the 'pedia. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)