Club Penguin Wiki:Archive/Demotions (of inactive users)

Forums: Index > Help desk > Archive/Demotions (of inactive users)

Demotions of Inactive users are currently in progress. Please do not inturrupt this operation! Thanks!

I am going to start something that should've been done. The demotion of users no longer active or editing. That way, it may open up some space for newer users. If you disagree, just let me know on this forum.

Thanks, and have a great day.

--Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!}

---

Okay, I've done good so far in this project. If another bureaucrat agrees, can I have some assistance with this? It's a lot to do by myself.

Thank you all for your support, and have a wonderful day!

--Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!}

Comments?

• I agree 100% --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Me too. This should have been done a lot sooner; I mean, people are always complaining that there are too many blah, blah, blah... ~falls asleep~ See what I mean? I'm totally with this. American Che AHH! WHAT A STUPID KABOB! ^{Your spelling is FIAL!} 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree cause this will make user happier!Shoop Da Whoop! I'm Firin' Mah Laza! 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly! I mean, (and i'm not saying it will happen but if it did...) what would happen if we had about 20 adimins or rollbacks? Inactive ones have to be demoted.--Europea^{Talk to me} 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree... we need some new fish round here.

• Hat Pop, remember our discussion at IRC about this. I said we should give them this message: Rollback powers should only be given to users who regulary prevent vandalism. Rollbacks have 2 weeks to prove themselves, and if they prevent at least 10 pieces of vandalism, participate in a non-vandalism project, or do something significant about vandalism, they keep their powers. Rollbacking isn't another step towards sysop powers. It is simply an ability to have an extra button which can remove vandalism with ease. It is not a ranking of any sort.
  

Also, sysop powers should only be given to users who regularly edit, participate in user projects and move the wiki forward in any way possible. It should not be given to users who have 1000 edits, with 900 of them being talk edits. It should be given to users who help an article become featured, make more pages, help the wiki get a spotlight or help the wikia have 1000 articles for example. These are all good examples of things that should be noted when making a user an admin. Yet again, sysopship is not a rank or a step towards being a beauracrat, it is the chance of getting extra abilities to help the wiki become better. The wiki is for visitors, remember, not the users. Take this in, and note this when doing stuff like "promoting". _{--TЙГЭPHO3Ь} ^{(Chat|Edits|Vandals)} 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree.Template:Hasign
• No doubt. I'll do it too! --$harkbate ^{DON'T MESS WITH THA SHARK BOI!} 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• We came to conclusion ages ago that demoting inactive sysops would only annoy them if they ever came back and that it only helps us stastically, which in reality doesn't help us at all. Also, it's pretty disrespectful. The old user's of this wiki's legacy should stay.

--4th hale (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• YES!!Then sysops requests would open up!!--Patchy99 Ninja Master>You cant see this!!(Contribs|Editcount)

• • I understand that, 4th hale, but what's the point of those user having that power if they never really use it anymore? It would open up some space for the newer generations of users here...and anyway, I'm thinking about shutting down promotions entirely, simply because we have too many of everything. As many have already said, "We're giving away powers like candy"., which is very true.

There are too many rollbacks, yes, it's true. 50 is a lot for one Wikia alone.

There are too many administrators; half of which were completely inactive before demotion.

Too many bureaucrats. Although only about 2 or 3 of the NINETEEN bureaucrats are active, that's really all we need.

Sorry 4th, but nearly everyone else agrees, and I have to do what the people wish. Unless more people disagree, the plan must go forward. Once again, I apologize.

And Patchy, is the only thing you care about here is administrator or rollback powers? I think the articles and the audience are way more important. (No offense).

Have a Wonderful day,

--Hat Pop ^{Bunny Ears Rule!} 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree with 4th Hale, I suppose it'll be this way. --☺ƒгәӘ╚σн☺ 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, let's do this. However, I don't think we should demote Robbsi and V-Rex, just in case they decide to come back. --Chill Was Here! Talk To Chill! File:Smile spin.gif 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• They won't come back. They haven't for 2 years. We will give it back to them if they decide to rejoin, of course, but they won't. Another wiki had to sacrifice it, when they took away powers from the creator of the wiki because they werinactive. _{--TЙГЭPHO3Ь}

^{(Chat|Edits|Vandals)} 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, inactive users would be warned, then if they're still inactive, they'll be demoted. But the problem is, like 4th Hale said, is that users that quitted, and comes back later would be frustated. I agree 50% with the idea, users that quit (at least the users who said that they may/will return) should not be demoted, althrough, like I said, we send a warning mesage to the inactive users that hasn't quit, so if they're still inactive after the warning, they'll be demoted. --Staffan15 ^{Everything has a beginning, everything has an end.} 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)