WikiFur talk:Colleagues/Archive

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Note that I've only put extra contact details for myself because I'm only sure it's OK to contact me externally, not because I intend to be the sole point of contact if things go wrong. If anyone else wants to put contact info, go right ahead!

Fair warning - people do use it, and sometimes they're very definitely not happy about things . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 06:54, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

List order[edit]

Is the list of administrators in any particular order? It isn't alphabetical, though I'd be happy to change that! -- Sine 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Active vs Inactive admins[edit]

Looking over the list of amdins, there are a few names on there that I haven't seen contribute to the Wiki in awhile. While I have no problems with them retaining admin status, I would like to suggest that we split the list into "active" and "inactive" admins, with the delineator being that admins go into the inactive group when we haven't seen them on the Wiki in the last month.

My reason for this idea is to help us better keep track of how many admins are hitting the wiki on a regular basis, and to help us determine if we need to bring more people on as admins as the Wiki grows.

Just a thought. Comments? --Giza 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Though I would prefer a neutral category title like "Admins that have not made any edits in the past month" instead of Active vs. Inactive. --Rat 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that the stats has information on who has and has not made recent edits. Admins tend to have most of the edits, so their names should be close to the top of both the active and inactive lists. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Should add Jack Phoenix to the list since he's technically a sysop atm, but he got his janitor flag today so the +sysop is moot anyway. --Charitwo 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add "and janitors" to the note at the bottom, since the main list is generally reserved for those who are or were actively involved in WikiFur, rather than Wikia in general. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


I was wondering if there's some sort of application to be an admin, or if it's only by current admin nomination (ie, GreenReaper asks someone to help out)? I'm interested, but I am admittedly still learning. ^^ Spaz Kitty

Edit: I also noticed the 'staff' lists below the main list...perhaps that would be something more up my alley for the time being.

There's not really any application process; it's primarily been that if a person sticks around for a while and is a constructive contributor, with time GR will bump them to admin. Trust me, being an admin is not that big of a deal - it's like not being an admin, with a few shortcuts added :-) As for the "staff" list, those are people who are employees of Wikia, the company that provides the server space and software that makes WikiFur and so many other wikis possible. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

patrolled edits[edit]

After a vandalism edit has been undone, should the vandalism edit be marked as patrolled? (I assume it should, but I want to make sure) --EarthFurst 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Up to you - I don't tend to bother for mass vandalism, since you can use the bot reversion for obvious vandalism, and then it just won't show up for most people in recent changes at all. If you've fixed the problem, it doesn't need to be looked at by another, so it is logically correct to mark it as patrolled. --GreenReaper(talk) 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


In the list of administrators in the Spanish edition, the link to Argox was written as [[es:User:Argox|Argox]] instead of [[:es:User:Argox|Argox]], so it is rendered as an interwiki. Would somebody please correct it? --Fibonacci 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Jazz - is a 7-th Russian-speaking administrator on Russian language WikiFur. He is an experienced user on Russian Wikipedia. OckhamTheFox 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to articles about other language WikiFur editions[edit]

Why not to add {{WikiFurProjects}} template here or add simply links to English WikiFur articles such like Portuguese WikiFur, Russian WikiFur, Spanish WikiFur? This will increase connectivity of articles and prevent orphanage. Also Russian Wikifur has 10-th admin - NightFox. OckhamTheFox 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Active Admin Errors[edit]

Just in case anyone actually maintains this page, the talk page for KendricksRedtail says no such user exists, and Spaz Kitty apparently isn't active. —Xydexx 15:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've updated the page. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin Responsibilities?[edit]

Do some of the admins tend to specialize in one area or another? If so, might I suggest that such be noted by their names? If not,... well, I guess not, then :-) --GingerM (Leave me a message) 08:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can think of examples of specialities: Sine took on responsibility for the category system in early years, while RainRat had led image use patrol, and several others are known for handling recent changes monitoring and blocks. Like editing an article, people tend to do whatever they consider necessary at the time; in these cases, they took action, and their efforts endured because their peers agreed with them, not because they had a specific role.
So I dunno. We have no formal positions - no one person who has the power to say "this is how the category system must go". However, there are some who might be able to give better advice than others in certain areas. If that was what you were getting at, perhaps you (or others) have some idea as to how that might be indicated without implying that they have direct control over such areas? --GreenReaper(talk) 20:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Um. I didn't mean to imply that they had control or responsibility for it, but closer to what you said about Sine or RainRat; that they tend (or tended) to handle particular things - images, or categorizing, so if editors - particularly newer ones - had questions, there would be indications of who might be considered an expert, or at least more experienced.
As for how we might indicate that, perhaps the term 'mentor' might be suitable. So Sine would be listed under admins as "Sine (Categorizing mentor)" and RainRat would be "RainRat (Images mentor)". I think "mentor" implies knowledge without also implying control or responsibility. I was going to suggest 'sensei' or 'jedi' but I don't think they're entirely apropos :-)
Any other opinions? Am I making too much out of this? Thanks. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
One thing that could perhaps be clarified is that administrators do not have editorial responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the articles on Wikifur, at least not in the same sense and to the same degree that a non-fiction periodical such as a newspaper or magazine would. While it's true that admins exercise a degree of editorial authority over at least the subject areas we are familiar with, we don't consider ourselves the final authorities and will gladly invite the participation of those more knowledgeable in particular subjects.
In particular, it should be noted that the administrators are not vicariously responsible for the truth and accuracy of Wikifur in an overarching sense, because that's not how wikis work. Wikis operate on the basis of "crowdsourcing" the content of the articles and ultimately reaching a consensus among the contributors to a particular subject area. Although admins try to insure the truth and accuracy of articles, the ultimate responsibility lies with the community as a whole and the good-faith contributions of all participants .
I bring this up because one particularly outspoken critic of Wikifur (I won't mention any names but you can probably guess who I'm talking about) has registered complaints that apparently presume this kind of editorial responsibility, with Greenreaper as the editor-in-chief. In many cases this isn't a problem because often one or more administrators know enough about a subject to keep the articles on track, whereas the aforementioned critic had a particular gripe over a couple of articles that apparently aren't within any of the admins' areas of expertise and therefore had to rely on consensus of other participants. --mwalimu 19:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how would you handle it if one of the other participants is a known troll (I won't mention any names but you can probably guess who I'm talking about) and is trying to get misinformation incorporated into the wiki? Would you consider the opinions of those more knowledgeable in particular subjects then, or would you have them argue endlessly with a known troll for months on end? Because I can guarantee you all my outspoken criticism could have easily been avoided had the WikiFur admins actually listened to people who were knowledgeable in particular subjects instead of doing everything they could to make people argue with trolls on the wiki as long as possible. —Xydexx
For example, what would you do if someone edited an article to say GreenReaper was a pedophile? And when you asked for a citation, they provided a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica as their source? One would hope the Admins in charge would be on the ball enough to remove something like that because Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't a valid reference, but based on my past experience here at WikiFur has dictated you need to assume good faith and argue with the troll for months on end about GreenReaper being a pedophile until you reach some sort of consensus that both of you can agree on (e.g., GreenReaper only fantasizes about underage girls dressed in Norn costumes or something), and the Admins will do everything in their power to make sure that discussion drags on for as long as possible because they think all viewpoints are valid (even the batshit ones).
Hard to believe? Then why, despite repeated requests for assistance, didn't the Admins do anything about a troll who admitted he was using a sockpuppet account and had been kicked off of two forums previously who was seeking to import his lunacy to WikiFur? (Instead, the Admins banned the guy who was trying to ensure WikiFur had accurate information! Way to go!)
GreenReaper has said previously that the standard for including things on WikiFur is not whether it's true, but whether someone believes it's true. So tell me, if someone believes GreenReaper is a pedophile because they read it on Encyclopedia Dramatica, would there be a similar war of attrition in order to hash out consensus that everyone,including the troll, can agree with?
That is the core of my disagreement with the way WikiFur is run currently. If someone says "2+2=4" and someone says "2+2=6" you shouldn't say "2+2=5". The problem is GreenReaper takes NPOV to such an extreme that it damages his—and WikiFur's—credibility. You have to assume good faith even with solid evidence of bad faith. You can't call a troll a troll even when you have evidence they're trolling, because their actions on other sites doesn't matter. It's no wonder so many editors have gotten frustrated and given up on WikiFur over the years. —Xydexx
PS: re: "...the aforementioned critic had a particular gripe over a couple of articles that apparently aren't within any of the admins' areas of expertise and therefore had to rely on consensus of other participants." If the "aforementioned critic" was someone with almost 30 years of experience who was an active participant in the online communities and ran a zine, website, and electronic mailing list dedicated to the subject, then maybe you should have paid more attention to what he had to say instead of demanding he argue with a troll for months on end. Seriously, you had a subject matter expert right there telling you everything you needed to know, but you chose to ignore it. —Xydexx
Actually, don't bother answering that. It's obvious I'm wasting my virtual breath here and reminds me why I abandoned my WikiFur account in the first place. Besides, the fact that y'all even considered making an Encyclopedia Dramatica editor a colleague proves my point better than anything I could possibly say anyway. —Xydexx

Hopefully the recent changes meet both of these requests. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:21, 10 May 2011 (EDT)


The brief discussion above got me thinking. I'd like to propose changes to the current system of administrators - in particular, how they are named.

The word administrator has a number of overtones, many inappropriate for a collegiate environment. Most visitors (and some users) look to administrators to define policy and mediate disputes between users. On WikiFur, these duties are held collectively by all interested contributors. Instead, administrators have the unique ability to implement certain community decisions and policies - both of an editorial and administrative nature. This distinction is understandably lost on some.

It's also unclear whether administrator is a role or a status. Historically the label has been earned through a consistent level of editing and kept unless relinquished - in line with a status - but many see it as a role with specific duties.

I therefore propose we split administrator to the role of curator and the status of colleague. This naming more closely reflects the role such contributors play - leading improvement of the presentation and substance of WikiFur's content. It also implies the process by which users gain such status: sustained collaborative action in accordance with our common purpose. (I considered fellow instead of colleague, but that seemed to imply a bigger thing than it is.)

This change would also clarify the status of "inactive" administrators. Being a curator implies some level of activity and responsibility, but colleagues may retain their status as long as they feel united with our purpose and methods.

The status of bureaucrat (controlling user rights, merge users, and selectively "edit history") would remain as it is, unless anyone has any better ideas. In this case, the naming seems accurate; the role performs a few specific privileged procedures. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

With no objection here and the approval of colleagues elsewhere, I have made the change. I also provided some more information about curators and other roles. I think the page is clearer now, though we should pick a place for requests/nominations for changes in status. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:29, 10 May 2011 (EDT)


I think it would be a good idea to import the concept of stewards from Wikipedia, separating my role as a bureaucrat across all WikiFur projects - particularly those lacking their own - from my status as founder and my technical role as sysadmin. This would enable others to be appointed as stewards if desired by the community. We should probably also aim for a more formal process for determining new privileged users, at least on the English WikiFur. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't much like the term steward, myself; perhaps Custodian, to go with Curator and Colleague above? -- Sine 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The three C's? ;-) I guess that makes sense, especially since it involves "maintaining the facilities" (watching for spam on unmaintained communities). --GreenReaper(talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We do already use Contributor, so continuing the Cs, indeed. -- Sine 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree - though I think if 'custodian' is accepted, then all the custodians should get a mop and bucket. :-) --GingerM (Leave me a message) 04:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently active[edit]

Looks like we dropped the "who haven't made any edits in the past month" heading. Separating out currently inactive makes sense to me, but perhaps with a longer time period: two or three months? -- Sine 17:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

We should use common sense. An editor who made two hundred edits in the last three months should be considered actively involved in the project; an editor who made two isn't. I'd look at the last 30 days, move colleagues with double-digit edits to curator (unless otherwise notified), and examine the contribution history of any curator not in that list. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:01, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Nomination: Equivamp[edit]

I would like to suggest that Equivamp join us as a colleague. Over the past year, she has made over 1700 main-namespace contributions to the English WikiFur, and a similar number outside that area, now ranking as our 12th most active contributor. She has been active in article discussions and in user talk (most notably welcoming new users). She has made a lasting positive contribution to this community, and I feel her status and abilities here should reflect that. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Time does get away from one! After such a length of contributing time, I support this. -- Sine 23:36, 18 February 2012 (EST)
Aye - Spirou 02:09, 20 February 2012 (EST)
Oppose. Her number of edits, and dedication over time, are highly commendable. However, I would be reluctant to work alongside a curator who is a frequent contributor on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, as Equivamp is. Especially as she is so friendly with one particular ED admin who has repeatedly vandalised WikiFur in the past. People might wonder if there's a conflict of interests going on.
My main problem is that curators have access to the deleted edits on WikiFur. Some of these contain highly personal information (real names, phone numbers, etc) which subjects have, understandably, requested be removed. I don't think an ED contributor should be entrusted with that sort of information.--Higgs Raccoon 21:48, 10 March 2012 (EST)
I guess that's a valid concern and I can see why you hold it. In my own defense, having the ability to see deleted content won't be a problem for me as the article about myself also holds sensitive information that has since been deleted. So even if a sense of common decency won't keep me from doing it, fear of reciprocation will. But, you know, whatever you want to do is fine. Equivamptalk 08:42, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
If you had any sense of decency at all, you wouldn't be an editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica. (I also note fear of reciprocation didn't prevent you from using ED as your Personal Army.) —Xydexx
A reasonable concern; it is hard to reverse a privacy breach, and offers a constant temptation. Is there appetite for creating a group which is still able to perform blocks, delete spam and vandalism, edit protected pages, and protect them, but which lacks access to deleted or hidden contributions or abuse filter details? Or does this lack of trust preclude any privileged position? --GreenReaper(talk) 18:02, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
It should be noted that Equivamp is responsible for posting the personal information (addresses, phone numbers, &c.) of other Wikifur users she's had disagreements with to Encyclopedia Dramatica in order to harass them RL. The fact that GreenReaper has chosen to reward this type of behavior by nominating her to be a colleague says a lot about the way WikiFur is run these days.
If I were running a Furry encyclopedia, being an editor on ED would automatically disqualify someone for any position of trust due to the obvious conflict of interest. But you knew that. —Xydexx The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
Citations, please? If you're talking about edits to the article about you on ED (which came after your own edits to WikiFur's article about her), I don't see an address or phone number. I see a link to a site with such information, posted months later by another editor.
My main concern is a user's activity on WikiFur, because this predicts their future activity on WikiFur. Activity elsewhere may impact access to certain features (as Higgs has suggested), or edits to certain pages, though we've been relatively lenient with the latter. I don't like Encyclopedia Dramatica - I think it's at best a waste of time for those who contribute to it - but in terms of impact on the fandom, editing there seems about as bad as being a regular poster to   furrydrama_2. It's one reason I waited so long to make this nomination; I wanted to see whether it would preclude her from editing neutrally here. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:15, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
You got the timeline of events wrong: Equivamp edited the article "about" me (ha!) on ED on June 3, almost two weeks before my edit to WikiFur's article on her (which involved providing a citation about her involvement in the hate group Burned Fur). I must admit to being a bit confused why Equivamp lies about her past membership with Burned Fur, yet openly admits being an editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is far worse. Equivamp also bragged about having "Sweet sweet dox on a certain inflatable unicor n" to her (now-deleted) Yahoo blog on June 16, a full three months before this information was added to ED, and was clearly the main instigator behind it.
Your lack of concern about a WikiFur editor's misbehavior offsite (and conflict of interest onsite) isn't really surprising. In recent years you've gained a reputation for defending trolls because—despite your claim that you don't like Encyclopedia Dramatica—you constantly make excuses for them instead of doing something about them. You don't even take action when they make personal attacks in clear violation of WikiFur's established policies.
I can understand why so many people request personal exclusion from this site. Your actions speak louder than words. —Xydexx
For the record: The only edit I made to Equivamp's article before she launched on her delusional crusade against me was to correct a typo. Obviously, this makes me a menace to WikiFur. —Xydexx
Honestly, if I was GR, taking that sort of tone wouldn't really make me sympathize with your point of view. Really, as long as Equivamp has shown herself to be a worthy contributor to the wiki, I see no reason why she shouldn't be promoted. If anything goes awry, she can simply be removed. When it comes down to it, it's how someone acts on this site that matters most of all, and considering she didn't ask to be made an admin, I think we can discount the theory that they've just been acting in the best interest of the site in some sociopathic desire to con her way to the top or something silly like that.
So while I'm just a lowly user, I say support. --Benchilla 18:45, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
Honestly, if you spent as much time as I have trying to navigate WikiFur's mercurial and contradictory standards, you'd take that tone with GreenReaper too. But I suspect you haven't.
There used to be a time when I was proud to support WikiFur, back when the intent was to build a wiki about Furry fandom and not a wiki about Furry fandom and whatever-else-we-feel like. I'd be considered a worthy contributor too, if WikiFur actually valued correcting misinformation and rolling back vandalism. But they don't, so I'm not. It doesn't really matter whether Equivamp asked to be admin or not; the fact that GreenReaper nominated her is just another in a long line of bad decisions he's made over the years. Considering how few people trust him as a result, I can understand how good help must be hard to find. —Xydexx
I saw the edits prior to your public disagreement, and they were trivial - providing your complete fan name, and adding a comment about WikiFur. You have not substantiated your claim that Equivamp was responsible for posting "personal information (addresses, phone numbers, &c.)" of WikiFur editors in order to harass them. Please do not defame our editors in your attempt to discredit them. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:16, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
It is unfortunate (but not at all surprising) that you are unconcerned about Equivamp's harassment of other WikiFur users and choose to reward her behavior, but this is perhaps one of the reasons WikiFur has the problems it does.
No defamation (i.e., harming her "good" (!) reputation) is being engaged in by me; you just tend to ignore evidence when presented. No matter: Equivamp's involvement with Encyclopedia Dramatica discredits her far more effectively than anything I could possibly say. —Xydexx

No longer watching this discussion due to not caring about a used-to-be editor who makes no effort to hide his disdain for this wiki, and as such obviously couldn't care less about the good of this site, and obviously couldn't make as much as an effort to log in. I've got more important things to do, like write a feminist-criticism essay on A Doll House, dink away at Second Life, or ramming a screwdriver through my brain. If a consensus is ever reached, please let me know. Equivamptalk 17:19, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Pulling a Xydexx, eh? I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. -:) —Xydexx

Abstain - On the plus side, she's been an active contributor here on Wikifur, updating articles and reverting vandalism, and I haven't observed any real issues with her activity on Flayrah. On the minus side, I think Xydexx's concern about her activity on ED has merit; I haven't personally looked at or evaluated her activity on ED (or much of anything else on the site) so I'm going to leave it at that. Also, there's the fact that as of today she's legally a minor. Wikifur has immunity from most activities done to Wikifur or using information from it by its users under DMCA safe harbor provisions, but that protection could be drawn into question when the users in questions have administrative priveleges on the site. If such a legal action were to be filed against Wikifur due to the actions of one of the administrators, and the administrator in question was a minor, that could put Wikifur in a very difficult position. --mwalimu 13:04, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

To the legal questions: as far as I can see, we are no more or less responsible if the person making an edit or taking an administrative action is a minor. If anything, it is their parents who should be concerned, although parental liability in the U.S. tends to be restricted to property damage and/or bodily injuries (e.g. Kansas Statute 38-120). The DMCA safe harbor provisions only cover copyright and do not pertain to libel, trademark infringement or other torts. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:10, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
You are correct that DMCA specifically addresses copyright issues, and that was a bit of inexactitude on my part. Nevertheless the concept of safe harbors applies more generally, such as to the other types of torts and infractions you mention. To anyone reading this, a good example would be the phone company. Over time it has been well established that the phone company cannot be held liable for the actions of people who use the phone system for illegal acts. In other words, the phone company has a safe harbor from liability for how their customers use the phones. But the safe harbor might not apply to actions by the phone company itself. In the context of Wikifur, we have a safe harbor for non-priv user actions, but we might not for users with higher privs. (Aside: One of the reasons SOPA and PIPA were such bad and dangerous bills is that they would have removed safe harbor provisions from many types of websites, with the result that in order for these sites to operate legally they would have to review all user-supplied content before it could be made publicly available, a requirement that would be infeasible for many websites to comply with.) --mwalimu 12:19, 23 March 2012 (EDT)


From what I can see, there is insufficient consensus to make Equivamp a colleague at this time. What are your thoughts on granting conservator status, which does not include access to privileged information? --GreenReaper(talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

If it lessens the concerns of access to sensitive data while granting higher editing rights, I vote yes. But, if the consensus is still against such appointment, I will abide to the majority decision if it's a non-grant status - Spirou 01:36, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I'm for setting her up as a conservator. -- Sine 12:30, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Very well. As this addresses Higgs Raccoon's main objection, I think we have consensus. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (EDT)


I'd like to propose that Colleagues who have not edited since we moved to (2009) have the status expire. Not in any way punitive, just tidy. -- Sine 23:44, 18 February 2012 (EST)

I feel this is inconsistent with the concept of colleague status as a form of tenure. If Frizzy, MelSkunk, MKerris or Verix resume editing, they would be accorded the same status (and retain the same technical power) with which they left. Their contributions are no less significant than those who were active since 2009 but are no longer active. The role of curator was created to achieve the goal of "tidying up" the list so that it distinguished between active and inactive colleagues. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Not even User:Ingreditur and User:Jack Phoenix? (Wishes to tidy.) -- Sine 18:28, 5 March 2012 (EST)
As noted in the source, those users are already not listed on this page, on the basis that they were given administrative powers for occasional/emergency use. Ingreditur appears to have used it only once since 2008, while Jack made a few curator-level edits in 2010. If you really think it's a good idea to remove their powers, we could, but it might be polite to at least contact them about it first. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Dealing with spam[edit]

GreenReaper asked above Is there appetite for creating a group which is still able to perform blocks, delete spam and vandalism, edit protected pages, and protect them, but which lacks access to deleted or hidden contributions or abuse filter details?

I think a group of abilities for dealing with spam and vandalism, which I would restrict to rollback, deletion, and performing blocks (assuming that restriction is technically possible) would be a useful level to had. (Pity we're already using the term Custodian.) If others agree, that would also ease my mind on extended colleague status: we could set in place that after a certain length of time of no edits whatsover, a colleague is left with this cleaning status but not the other abilities. (My concerns with tenure is the idea of someone returning after a long time away and no longer being current with WikiFur culture yet still having administration-level abilities. I also would far rather have an expiry or narrowing of abilities rather than having to deal with removing such abilities in a punitive way.) -- Sine 12:23, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

How about "Keeper", "Guardian" or "Conservator"? I'd suggest giving that level to those who were promoted primarily to protect against vandalism. I'm less keen on demoting those who clearly became attuned to our goals, contributing over a long period of time, but have had to step away for a while due to their other commitments. Wiki culture is based on individual action, and I don't want us to be bound entirely by precedent. Old colleagues should be free to step in use what are effectively reserve powers to act as they see fit, with the knowledge that others can correct them if they disagree. Put another way, it's OK if an article is protected for a month by an old colleague who decides to step in and help, even if another colleague has to change that to a couple of days to conform to general policy.
Specifically, I think moving any colleague who is not active or within the top 20 inactive users (i.e. lacking a sufficient history of edits) is reasonable. This would be Jack Phoenix, Ingreditur, Splarka, Verix, MelSkunk, Osfer and Simba B. All but Simba B were promoted in the first year; Simba B has not edited since 2008 and was mostly active reverting vandals. I considered Wesha and Markus, who were also promoted early on, but I suspect they would have obtained colleague status regardless. Both have edited since we moved from Wikia.
As for our culture, that should be documented and available for all editors, new and old. If it is not, that needs to be addressed. This is partly my fault; it has been a while since I did extensive editing in the WikiFur: namespace. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:19, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
Conservator is a nice one. -- Sine 00:39, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
I agree. I have created the group. It has your suggestions plus a few block/limit exclusions, but doesn't have rights related to protection, privileged page editing, undeletion or private data access, self-unblocking or sitewide modifications. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:18, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
I intend to perform the status changes suggested above by the end of the weekend, unless there is any objection. The users concerned have been notified through talk page and email. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Page history merging[edit]

On reviewing the available permissions, I've granted the permission to merge page history to colleagues. This is particularly useful when someone did a "cut and paste rename" and you want to fix it. Use it carefully, because it is non-reversible (it eliminates the old page's history). --GreenReaper(talk) 01:34, 19 March 2012 (EDT)