Forum:Inactive Administrators and Bureaucrats

Problem
As you can see after you look at the Special:WikiActivity for days, weeks, even months. You will notice that there are only 3 bureaucrats that usualy edit and work on the articles from this wiki.

Those are User:DancePowderer, User:Yatanogarasu and User:MasterDeva.

We have Special:ListUsers/sysop 8 administrators and 6 of them are bureaucrats.

As it can be seen here in the statistics for most main edits, there are bureaucrats that haven't edited an article for a long while. Examples are User:Mugiwara Franky who already said well enough that he will not be active here anymore and won't edit. So his rights as a sysop should have been taken away a long while ago.

User:Justyn has very very few edits. And hasn't edited on this wiki ever since the year 2008! I wonder why is he still a bureaucrat as well. He has done nothing for the last 3 years!

User:BattleFranky202 has not edited an article for 88 days. Even if he logged in 9 days ago. Not editing an article, which should be one of the most important responsibilities for a bureaucrat is not being done.

I understand the case about kazuya since he/she is the founder of this wiki. I'm not sure if it is even possible to strip him/her of his/her rights.

All of the users named don't seem to have done their job well enough to deserve their rights as bureaucrats on this wiki so I believe we should replace them with others. {C

Discussion
Well said.

Yeah, totally agree.. Admins should be active and participate at everything.. It seems that only those 3 are active.. And before that MasterDeva was inactive, so it was only 2 admins.. The others are really inactive.

I agree. The inactive administrators should be stripped of their title and give it to more deserving people. Maybe some of the reason against it is if the users come back. You can't be inactive for that many days and expect to still be an admin. There are several people who are quite dedicated to this wiki and deserve to have their hard work rewarded.Dmurray1031 22:04, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Nothing like a good nonissue, is there? I really don't see why this is a problem. The way I see it, someone should only be stripped of adminship if they do something to deliberately harm the wiki, and none of them have done that. Then again, now that something as completely harmless as this has been brought to the light, you guys will probably start crowing for something to be done about it. How does finding this out affect your activity on the wiki as opposed to before you knew?Ask yourselves, what are those people doing to the wiki that they deserve to be stripped (note that I used present tense)? And being inactive isn't a good enough reason. Just think, if this were brought up maybe only a month or two ago, Deva would be out of a job the way you guys are talking. This issue was harmless, and now that one person decided to have a problem with it, that just creates more problems. 22:43, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah.. I mean.. If it isnt a good reason to take the admin postion from a user that havent edited since 2008 then what is? I dont actually have a huge problem about it, but now that is on the table I should bring my opinion..

There is nothing wrong with them. The wiki needs active admins, so if the active ones are too few, we nominate new ones, but the inactive admins (who are the same of inactive users) still remain trustworthy, if they will come back (like Deva) they'll continue to provide their help like they did in the past, nothing more. Stripping the admin rights should be done only when the users become untrustworthy or goes against the wiki's good. I understand your logic, but it's not a problem as it seems, this happen on other wikis as well. Moreover there is one problem in doing what you ask, you can't demote a bureaucrat, only Wikia' Staff can do that.

I see. And the fact that you can strip the position of an admin is basically out of the list, cause they only have to vandalize to get their position off, and not if they are not paying attention to this wiki at all..

Just to be clear, you cannot demote a bureaucrat but an "admin only" can be demoted by a bureaucrat like DP.

Here's an idea: let's ask these inactive admins to see if they want to return to help edit anymore. If not (or if they remain silent) then we remove their admin status. 02:05, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good..

Then let's ask, and if we don't receive a respond in 7 days (or some other timelimit that you guys want), then we remove them and give their positions to some other editors: that would lead to a new forum opening for voting and debating.
 * As a suggestion for the future, if an admin decides to be inactive for an extended period of time (like 2-3 months) and still wishes to maintain their status, they should put a notification on their user page beforehand. Does it sound good? 02:17, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's the right thing to do, yeah nice.

Set the timelimit at a month but in the meantime I think Two More ADMINS should be approved can someone possibly make a nomination section. If so my votes go to LPK and Levithan Tuckyd 02:41, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

The month is fine. But this isn't about looking for new admins. This has to do with the admins who haven't been active for some time. 03:12, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

As DP said, this is not about getting new admins. This wiki already has enough admins. It is true that those listed about in the list of In-Active Admins are little at fault but its not upto use to decide to give them a second chance or not, they deserve it for the contribution they have given to this wiki. They were the one who shaped this wiki to what it is now and we must appreciate their work. A month notice sounds fair and if they do not reply or say that they can't be active anymore then active admins will take action. Again, we don't need new admins. Monkey.D.Me 03:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

This sounds pretty good to me, if they don't want the position, or if they are never gonna use it, then they can forfeit their titles. As for current admins, they are doing a damn good job, so we dont really need any more right now.  PX15 | What's up? |3:32 12/Dec/2011 UTC

I fail to understand why we need to demote them...If the other admins decide that they need more help than we'd elect new admins, but demoting them for the sake of demoting them seems a bit pointless. 09:02, December 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Exact same thoughts as Panda.

Sounds reasonable.. Let Yata leave them a message though, and we'll see how it goes. If they dont answer then we'll see what to do..

Erm.. just gonna ask.. will it hurt the OP wiki if we have lots of admins..?? I mean if we need new admins .. just elect. We don't have to strip other users just to give their position to others. 12:55, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I find it a little disturbing in myself to see that we have an admin that has fewer edits than most of the active users here. Two of the inactive admins left this wiki. I can call that betraying their position and running away from responsabilities. I see it this way: In a bussiness, if you do nothing, you get fired or get lower in position. They have become admins for editing and doing something on the wiki and they don't do it while others work their ass off. Its unfair, truly unfair to see this kind of thing. An admin working really hard at editing and one does not, becomes inactive and still has the same rights! Are you so lazy to demote them. Not for the sake of demoting, but for showing that an admin on this wiki edits and has some standards. I don't see how admins such as Mugiwara Franky will come back to edit. As you can see in my link about the sysop list, Battle Franky logged in just yesterday! But I see that he has done nothing in regard to what his responsabilites as an admin are.


 * Log in, means log in Wikia's network, so he could just be logged in another wiki or just come to take a look (through cookies Wikia will remember you if you don't log out, so if he visited any wiki under Wikia, it will results as a "log in"). For what I know he moved to One Piece Wikki. The admins with few edits are probably those at the early days of the wiki. If the main problem is having them in the list of admins, then we can simply categorize users, many wikis do that, like make a category for the active admins and one for non-active users, this way it's easy to find an admin for new users.

Rici, you're acting like they're committing some kind of crime by not showing up. There is no obligation here. They are allowed to work for a bit and then leave. People have lives, things change. There is nothing wrong with keeping them there. Anyone who can read will clearly see that they are inactive due to their last login and edit dates. Sometimes they leave and come back. Sometimes they don't. It's not something to make a huge deal about. I think we really don't need to delve into this any further, since I still see no overarching issue here. 16:28, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Its my way of seeing against yours. So I don't think I will be able to change your opinion. Yata said that he'll send them a message asking if they still wanna be admins. I just told you my opinion and Levi, if it comes to them keeping their rights. I think we should really do such a thing. Even now, it is a great idea.

I get that they aren't harming us at all, but the fact of the matter is, if they aren't coming back, then do they really need their positions? Think of it as a clean up or an update, and not like firing people. Like we said before, we will ask them what they want, and if they don't respond or don't care, we will remove their admin rights. I don't really see how this is a big deal anyways.  PX15 | What's up? |16:55 12/Dec/2011 UTC

Well there is no real point in mantaining them or removing them! It's all about their opinion anyways. Yata is going to send them a message if they don't want to remain then we strip them if they wan't to remain then we atleast should ask them to contribute more if they don't! Let's wait yata's response

The amount of edits isn't the only thing admins are judged on, and even if they were then the one with the most edits on this wiki is still MF, who also is an admin...anyways i agree with Panda, I see no use for demoting them and I believe we should just leave the admin status as some kind of honorific title. (It doesn't hurt to leave it, does it?)

Hey, here is a link for the wikipedia admin definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators I know this may not be how our wiki operates, but it says that admins must lead by example and fulfill their administrative duties. While I appreciate the service they have given, these unactive admins are no longer doing this in my opinion. Just a thought.  PX15 | What's up? |17:06 12/Dec/2011 UTC

The thing is there is nothing wrong with having those admins, even if they are inactive, maybe we can demote some (like Justyn...?) but not the ones who have contributed on this wiki to make the wiki as big as it is today. As I said, we should leave at least some of them as a honorific title. (btw PX, you should make your signature into a template, since it's a bit confusing on the source mode)

Wikipedia is not Wikia so that definition isn't valid. SeaTerror 17:47, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

So we are talkin about 2 admins.. Justyn and BattleFranky.. Justyn is a bureaucrat... While the matter is still hot I would like to remind you all that We are not doing this to get new admins. As Nan-ch asked about if having many admins can harm the wiki? Yes, it can in my opinion. This wiki has being doing great with the number of admins it had. DP and Deva been constant active and kept wiki in order. I do not care what happens to the in-active members and if they want to come back or not cause our wiki already has admins who can hold on their own. I understand how everyone feel that a person who has less edits and contribution then them has higher position and is been in-active for so long. You have every right to be angry but they also have their right to keep their position. Put yourself in their shoes and understand their sitution. Monkey.D.Me 18:54, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I get what DP is saying, like they didnt do anything 'bad' to strip their position.. But it doesnt hurt really if we actually sent them a message to see if they are gonna return. Leave Yata sent them messages and then we'll see whats going on..
 * About the fact that they may be active and dont edit at all shows that they dont care about this wiki anymore, and want to just keep that position for ever. BattleFranky was asked by Yazzy back in September if he wants to keep the sysop position and he said 'yes, im active now'.. His last edit is back at Semtember..

Damn sig, gotta fix that stupid thing......anyways, I don't really care about edits or anything, these people are no longer fulfilling their obligations as admins, no matter what type of wiki or wikipedia we are.  PX15 | What's up? |19:40 12/Dec/2011 UTC

Discussion 2
I'm bringing this up, because this is an issue that need to be resolved.

We have 8 admins. 6 of them are not active, or ignoring this wiki. We have only two active admins. That had been the way for almost an entire year. User:Mugiwara Franky stated that he will not be editing on here anymore, and moved to his own One Piece wikkii. User:YazzyDream is active on other wikis, such as this wiki. User:MasterDeva edit on here just once, every few months, but do not do his responsibilities as an admin. User:BattleFranky202 never come on this wiki. He do check this wiki, although not often.

We have let them be inactive for too long. I believe that this is the time to decide whether to strip all of the inactive admins of their rights or let them keep their rights.

I also have a suggestion, we can give them two weeks to a month to come back and start taking up their responsibilities as admins, as they should be doing, and if they do not come back within the time limit, we strip them of their rights.

Thoughts on this? 22:37, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well... This matter again... It has no use to deadmin them, but leaving them also has no use at all. So it's all about preferences. Personaly I think they once deserved their title, so to deadmin them just seems a bit unrespectful to me. But once again, this is a matter of preferences.

I agree with Jade. If they do not follow through on their responsibilities as admins, they shouldn't be admins. Nobody's banning them from editing here, so it's not a huge deal to remove privileges that they clearly don't use, or in some cases clearly do not want. Admins should be around to help out, and if they aren't helping, they shouldn't be admins.

Also, Jade left out the Founder of the wiki who seemed to have a falling out with many of the first users here, and left to edit other websites (Links from his edits to his own page are inactive). All 12 of his edits are solely to user pages, and he is obviously not coming back to help in any way.

From reading the rest of this forum, I've seen the argument "It doesn't hurt to have them as admins" brought up a lot. But, since these users have gone inactive, the rules of the site have changed, and they could potentially come back and make admin-level edits that are harmful by our current standards. Especially if they come back randomly with no notice and just begin editing.

While I do think it's wrong of the admins to be inactive, I think we should also be a bit forgiving in how we remove their power. If we remove their powers, and then in a year, they come back requesting their admin powers back, their should be a process to do so. If they assure us that they have read the rules of the wikia again (in order to check for ones they've forgotten or have changed) and then make a couple hundred edits to prove they are serious about returning, we should give them their powers back. We shouldn't need to re-elect or talk to them in a forum as long as they can prove to the other admins that they are back to help for real.

Also, if somehow the other admins are reading this, I just want to ask them: "Do you honestly expect to come back and help out? If not, you should consider just telling us that and letting us move on. Thanks" 23:13, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

THT, if they are no longer willing to help out with the wiki anymore, then they are no longer deserving of their sysop status. Imagine every molecule in your entire body spontaneously exploding at the speed of light (talk) 23:22, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SomeDude. The admins might want to be admins again, so they should have the request to do so, provided they promise they can keep the title. Of course, we shouldn't revoke it before telling them. Let's message them, then give them at least 2 weeks to respond. No response, then their title gets revoked. If an admin has a problem with this, they should say something. You guys did great when you were active, but that's in the past now.

Also, I must say, Mugiwara isn't 112% inactive. There was a certain querral with a user a while ago (not saying any names), and he had to be a little active again to take care of it. Also, who doesn't remember when he proposed links to the Wikki here?

That's not to say he shouldn't be considered in our thought to revoke, though I know he's definetely going to respond. And since he works on a Wikki and not a Wikia, messaging him here won't be very effective, so we should message him on the Wikki. 23:42, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For those users who do edit elsewhere, they should be contacted on places they actually edit. 23:43, October 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nada, that is exactly what I suggested. Give the inactive admins a few weeks to come back (we leave a message on their wall first, of course), and if they do not come back, or reject the offer, then we can de-admin them. If they do come back within the time limit, they get to keep their rights. Just making it clear. 23:53, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with deadmin them. No offense or anything, but some admins haven't even come on or edited for such a long time. They'll still be recognize as previous admins, people will still remember them. In the previous discussion, I think some didn't even respond at all. They used to be good admins, and I respect them for that but I think they have moved on with their lives and aren't going to edit anymore. If they do, it's probably going to be once in a while or something along those lines. But shouldn't the message that they have to respond be a little longer? 00:40, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha, apologies for shameless laugh on this serious forum >_> its just funny to see my everyday joke getting serious again ^_^ all thanks to Bump Queen Ming! Now for the forum, yea .. if they are inactive and are not willing or able to participate in this wiki'e activities .. we need to make some desperate decisions, But I don't much agree with demoting them >_> if in future they decide to come back and help this wiki further its safe to keep the possibility open. So .. demoting the old admins?, Nope but I am sure I can change my mind if faced with strong reasons. 03:36, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

We don't mean to disregard the past administrator's efforts by removing their status, as several users have voiced concern of elsewhere. It is just misleading to newer users or whoever is unfamiliar with this site to have seven administrators listed (eight including the bot) when only two of them are actually active.

If you had a boss or authoritative figure who did nothing at all, would they really be able to keep their position? No, they would be let go due to negligence. They received that position based on the belief they would do their duty and in the situation where they do not, they are then removed.

I'm not saying the old admins are purposely ignoring their site, I'm just saying they've moved on. As we should also do. None exercise their administrative authority here, and only one or two edit every few months. Removing their status will not stop them from contributing, it isn't like we're banning them.

Out of respect for their work however, I propose we introduce a "Former Administrator" template which honours their contributions to the site and recognises the time they put into our community when they were active. These could be placed on their profile or talk pages for anyone to see that we do indeed appreciate their work. 05:45, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I kinda saw it as "if we were voting for new admins, we wouldn't exactly vote in someone who has been inactive or has three edits over the past four months, right?" Personally, I don't think we need to edit other people's user pages, even if they are gone, but if people feel that that is necessary, then go for it. 12:03, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Since we're discussing this now, should we notify YazzyDream, MasterDeva, BattleFranky202, and Mugiwara Franky? And how do we notify Mugiwara? By messaging him on the Wikki or the Wikia? 16:35, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * We should notify the admins in any way that we can. Their talks here, other wikias, email, or anything else we can find. I think it's important to make sure they get the message, so sending the same message 3 or 4 times can't be a bad thing.

Also who is going to send the messages, and when? I think they should be sent by another admin or at least a trusted user who has been here a long time and knows them. 18:11, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I can notify all of them if you guys really want me to. I will contact them on any wiki they are active on. 19:37, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was surprisingly fast. Looks like most users agree that we should strip the inactive admins, if they do not come back within the time limit. For the users that don't want the admins to be stripped of their powers, if we follows Kuro's suggestion and make a template that says, "Former Admin", would you guys be fine with that? If not, please say so, as well as why. Thanks. 19:37, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I say no to the Former Admin template. We don't edit user pages in the first place, and this is simply unnecessary. 01:40, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * We edit warned and banned users' pages, to add the vandal and banned templates. I don't see how this situation should be different (even though the actions and templates are completely different, that's not the point). We'll put the template in as a sign of honor. Think of it like a grave; a grave that will always be remembered. 02:39, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * I just find it slightly disrespectful to edit someone's talk page without their permission (and if they wanted to, they would probably just do it themselves). If you want to do that, I have no problems with it. We shouldn't make this a big deal with the forum. Just ask the admins who agree with having their admin rights removed if they want some kind of recognition. if they do, then we'll make one, and if they don't, then we don't have to do anything. 03:43, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Though what would we do if we don't hear back from the admin? 04:07, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you guys can go ahead and create the template, since public favor seems to be for it. 04:15, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like most people support at least messaging the admins to notify them about losing their privileges. However, it is also important that we set up a time limit for any admins in the future who are gone for a long time. I think that one month is a reasonable amount for an admin to be gone without losing their privileges, but any more could result in revoking of admin rights. On both counts, I would like to see some more discussion before we move on with anything. 04:15, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we address this after we're done with the currently inactive admins? Sorry, but I just think it would be easier to do that in a separate forum once all the information from the outcome of this one is done with. I don't want this discussion to stray too far from it's purpose or else I fear nothing will be done again. 04:29, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though I think this applies to the topic at hand, I guess we should just tackle this one at a time. I got ahead of myself there. 04:37, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * It definitely does apply to this conversation, it's just that the conversation about how long it takes to de-admin someone will go easier once it's been decided that we actually can de-admin someone due to inactivity. That's just my belief though. 04:41, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem, it's just a formality... a massage on their profiles that tell the viewer he is inactive it should be enough. But I'm not against demoting them, it's just I don't see it as a problem, that's all.


 * That's fine. You're neutral and I understand that. However, the admins never let us know that they would be inactive, with the exception of MF. That, I got a problem with. Also, even if they announced that they would be absent, I have a problem with them being away for too long. Obviously, they moved on with their life. And like Kuro said, we should move on, not clinging on to the past. 20:38, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. We need to discuss this.

Look like most of the users here agree with me, on giving the inactive admins a time limit to come back to here, or be stripped of their rights. Can we decide on how long the time limit will be now or do we have to make a poll to leave the admins alone or to give them a time limit to come back and if they do not come back, be stripped of their rights? 18:35, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

I say wait a month, then strip them of their rights. Obviously we're not going to wait to add new admins, but as of now we should just give it a month. Imagine every molecule in your entire body spontaneously exploding at the speed of light (talk) 18:38, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, inactive admins should have one month to do at least one admin-related edit, and after that, strip them of their status. Speaking of which, new admins (if and after we dismiss the old ones) should be ready to contribute periodically, or they are not fit for the position. 20:29, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

One month sound good, for the time limit for the current inactive admins to come back. Two weeks is too short, while two months is too long. So one month is the best, in my opinion.

However, what about future admins? Suppose they have to leave the wiki for longer than a month, due to family problems, surgery, etc, and tell us first? Also, what can we do with admins that leave this wiki suddenly, without any warning, for more than a month? We really need to tackle this issue, so we won't have to bring this to a forum the next time this happen. 21:05, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think that admins who leave after letting us know (as Yata did a few weeks ago) should be allowed. However, if they say they are going to be gone for one week, and then don't come back, we should remove their rights after one month. For future admins, if they go on a one-month break without any prior warning, they lose rights. For the current admins, two weeks seems like a long enough period to let them respond. 21:09, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

If anyone do have problems with stripping the inactive admins of their rights, then again, say so then I can open the poll to keep or strip the rights of the inactive admins, tomorrow. If no one have any problems, then, can we proceed on to the time limit? And afterwards, what we will do with inactive admins in the future? 21:50, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

So just to make the whole process clear: First, we're gonna have a poll about if we will strip the inactive admins of their status. Assuming we vote in favor of that, we will message the inactive admins in order to see if A) They even want their powers. and B) if they will actually return to active admin-level editing here. Then once all that's over with, we'll start a new forum about how what to do in the event of inactive admins in the future?

Is that all correct?

And I wish to state again that the founder should also be eligible to lose his admin rights as well, considering he's done less than most new users for the good of the site. He was an inconsiderate guy, who from what I can tell from posts that were on his page, banned User:Angel Emfrbl because she didn't like Dragon Ball Z. And as most of us know, Angel's done far more for this site than many of the admins we're talking about removing now. 22:22, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt we need a poll for this case. Only two people have expressed dissatisfaction with this issue, and I believe Levi said he was neutral. If public opinion seems this skewed, a poll would only complicate matters. 22:52, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * And would drag this whole process more out and more than it should. If the public opinion is clear then a poll is not necessary. 22:57, October 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * PX and IH made the points why I'm against making the poll. We already have an oh ever so glaringly obvious majority wanting to strip the rights of the inactive admins, with only two people against it. A poll would just delay the progress of the forum. 23:28, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well if we skip the poll, the next step is to contact all the inactive admins. Who's gonna do that? And are we going ahead with removing the founder? 23:57, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to make a poll? Good. And JSD, you're wrong. The next step is to decide on how long until the current admins have to come back. Which most likely requires a poll. And then afterwards, contact all of the inactive admins. I say remove the founder's rights, but other than that.... Well, nothing much. 00:00, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we give a little longer for future inactive admins? I mean what if they have something sudden and can't tell the wiki. Like what if they are hospitalize suddenly and can't be online for more than a month? I'm just saying this because I know someone that was in the hospital nearest to me for more than a month and the only thing they were able to do was have watch TV, have visitors, pretty much anything not involving the internet. Yes, hospitals near where I live are very strict. I think we should give them at least two to three months. 00:15, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to resolve that issue once we decide on the poll for the current inactive admins to come back. Then once we get that over with, we can tackle the issue for future inactive admins. Easier to deal with one issue at a time. But thanks for bringing that up! 00:20, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * What? I thought that was the sudden topic, since you guys were talking about. Oh well XD 00:25, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Calu, if it was honestly something like an unexpected hospitalisation that lasted long enough for them to be considered inactive, then upon returning and explaining their situation then we'd surely return their status immediately. Do you really think we'd respond with, "Well, sucks that you were put in the emergency room and couldn't contact us but dem the rules."


 * No, exceptions can easily be made. Rules are rules yes, but we don't have to abide by them in such a black and white manner. 02:58, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

For the current admins, give them two weeks to reply. Some of them have been gone for months by now, so two weeks seems like a reasonable time. 02:31, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think 2 weeks is fair, ads long as we've tried to contact them in any and every way we can. If someone doesn't respond to 3 or 4 different messages in two weeks, what are the odds they would respond given 2 more weeks? I'm not entirely opposed to waiting a month, but I think the odds that the extra two weeks would matter would be slim. 02:53, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am against of stripping the in-active admins of their rights, they did nothing wrong to strip them of their rights, as koro said if the problem is " It is just misleading to newer users or whoever is unfamiliar with this site to have seven administrators listed (eight including the bot) when only two of them are actually active " then we can just do the thing like levi suggested " If the main problem is having them in the list of admins, then we can simply categorize users, many wikis do that, like make a category for the active admins and one for non-active users, this way it's easy to find an admin for new users. "


 * but I and some other ( more like many ) users are against it . 12:09, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * What have they done wrong? Well, they have kinda neglected their administrative duties by being absent for months or even years on end. And if they state that they are not going to be editing consistently on this site again, why should we keep the confusion? 14:30, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

"They did nothing wrong" is a naive way to see the situation. The status of an administrator is not a reward, it isn't a shiny medal you get to keep long after serving your time. It's a job. And when you can no longer, or rather, will no longer participate in that job, you are then let go.

Yes, they contributed greatly when they were active. We acknowledge that. But for most of them that was many months, if not outright years ago. Clinging onto the past is a harmful attitude, and it reflects an unwillingness to accept change. Like it has been said already, we need to move on. 15:09, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Yatanogarasu said, we need to go out with the old. 18:21, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am for taking away inactive administrator rights. I also believe they should be given a short response time, perhaps 2 weeks, to get back to this wiki. I can confirm that YazzyDream will be easy to contact as I see her almost every day on wikia. Thank you. 00:10, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Time to Wait for a Response
We all want the inactive admins, but we've all had very different ideas on how long we should wait for them to respond. Let's settle that in this section. 02:26, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

This feels like the third time I've brought this up, but I think that two weeks is a good time. They have already been gone for months or even years, so two weeks seems like a reasonable time for a response. 02:30, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to anywhere between two week to one month. 02:33, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm also open to anywhere between two weeks to one month. Can we please discuss this first, and then on to the future inactive admins? This is more important and urgent than the other topic. Thanks. 02:23, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

For the current inactive admins: two weeks seems to be good. If we use every method we possibly can to contact these people, then there is no reason for them not to respond in two weeks. 02:30, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with PX. 2 weeks seems like enough time to contact them. I doubt the extra 2 weeks given by waiting a month will affect anything.

And both this and the topic below need to be discussed, because both need to be settled before any messages can go out. 03:15, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, this issue should be resolved first, because this is more urgent, involving current admins, while the other issue is of what we should do with future admins that might become inactive. So yeah, this is sort of more urgent and should be resolved first. 03:21, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, can we notify the inactive admins now, to come back within two weeks? 03:21, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the questions in the discussion below is if we should treat the currently inactive admins differently from future inactive admins. (I think we should, because they've already been inactive for a long time) And until at least that question is dealt with, we can't message anyone. 16:45, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Treat them differently and get on with it already. 17:06, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * What DP said. Now can we move on with it? 19:48, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

If we treat them differently though, that means we have to discuss what that means below. And we have to say the terms of their return in the message we send, so we can't go jumping into sending messages just yet. So discussing things below may be more helpful in getting the messages out than talking up here. 20:11, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by treating them differently. Everyone is refusing to discuss a new rule without fixing this first. I think it's pretty clear to me that we are going to ask the currently inactive admins if they want to return. If they don't want to come back, then out with their rights. If they don't respond within two weeks, out with their rights. If they come back and resume full admin editing, nothing happens. While we are waiting for them to respond, we create the new rule below. Now what is the problem? 20:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Treating them differently means would require a bit more from them than what we would from future inactive admins. Which means that the rule made for these admins would be different from what we would hold new admins to. I think these currently inactive admins need to do a bit more than not be inactive for a month, like some people have been asking for. We're looking to get some active admins out of this, not just admins that are active once a month so that they don't lose their adminship. 20:28, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Sound good enough, PX. Two weeks is after all, what most users here like so far. Who is going to tell the inactive admins anyway? I can do it, but I would rather us decide it than me going off doing it without notifying you guys. 20:22, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm going to notify the inactive admins to become active on here, let us know if they don't want to be admin oon here within two weeks. 20:38, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I informed all of the inactive admins. Should I inform the founder as well, or will he just be stripped of his rights? 22:47, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering he hasn't appeared in about four evers, not even to respond to a message Swim left him, I would just assume he's forgotten about this site completely. He may have even lost his password to Wikia. Still, though, message him to be fair. 23:27, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I informed him just to be fair. Can bureaucrats strip other bureaucrats' rights, or will we have to contact the staff to do it for us? 23:35, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe staff have to. 00:33, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Jade can you ask the admins who want to remain to admin to write that they want to remain admin on this forum or to DP or Yata, aslo can you give them a link to this forum 10:42, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will do that. My bad for not being crystal clear on the posts. 20:03, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Time's up. Any unresponsive admins, as well as those who stated that they shall not be returning, will now lose their rights. MasterDeva has expressed interest in returning, so he keeps his spots. To my knowledge, he's the only one. 01:10, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

So a current Bureaucrat should email staff to get the inactive bureaucrats taken care of, right? 02:08, October 31, 2012 (UTC) Right. To my knowledge, User:BattleFranky202 and User:YazzyDream lose their rights, though only Yazzy is a bureaucrat, as shown here. User:Justyn also has bureaucratic rights, but is no longer an admin. Those need to go. 13:01, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the founder User:Kazuya2070 whose rights we also decided to remove. 15:08, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the Terms of Administrator Returns
Well, since it seems that most of us agree that inactive admins should lose their status, I think we do need to discuss what would happen if they actually do respond. I don't think having them respond and make 1 admin-level edit is really good enough to have them remain admins. I think the admins should be prepared to make at least 2 editing sessions/check ins a week. And in the message, we should state "If you honestly don't think you can edit on this wikia twice a week, you probably should not be an administrator here." or something like that. But that's just my opinion of what being a truly active admin is. It doesn't mean I want 2 edits a week, or they lose status, that's just my definition of an "active admin." And since the point of this forum is to seek out active admins, that's what I think we should say. This idea is highly subjective though, other people should voice their opinions on what the possibly returning admins need to do. 02:26, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

They need to respond with a message explaining their absence, and will be required to let us know whether they plan to return or not. If they plan to return, they'll be required to perform a similar amount of work that DP and Yata currently do unless their personal situation restricts this (such as chronic illness). 02:33, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Not every week. I go on trips where I have zero computer access for more than one week, and I know there are some people who can relate to that. And what's an "admin-level" edit? Banning someone? I don't think that requiring a specific amount of type of edits is really the way to go. As long as they are active (which is relatively simple to determine), then they keep their rights. If they are inactive for one month, then they lose them. I think of it kind of like a ban referral; if someone thinks that an admin is not being as active as he/she should be, then he submits a complaint to a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat warns the admin, and if there is no response, or the person lapses back into inactivity after a few weeks, rights are removed. 02:36, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

The one month rule has its flaws, though. If an admin is going to be inactive for that period of time or longer, they should let the community know, so they can take the necessary actions. What those actions are, (mentally prepare, appoint temps, decide what should get locked?) I don't know. If they're gone for a month without any notification, then yeah, I can see taking the rights away. However, in the interest of fairness, they should have the right to choose to appeal to keep their rights if they and upon their return, if they so choose. 03:20, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that pre-arranged absenses were allowed. As for the appeal, I think that an admin should be stripped of their rights after one month, but they can appeal and have them granted again. Does that sound ok? 03:24, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I was only thinking of bureaucrats, because someone from central has to take their status away. so it would seem silly to request their removal, only to give it back to them. 12:01, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, for bureaucrats, we can wait until after the appeal to remove their status. For admins and the like, it would be relatively simple to take rights away and give them back, I think. 12:09, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * And this would only apply to future admins and bureaucrats, for the record. 12:13, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys are already discussing the rule that's gonna apply to all admins. I agree with Jade that this matter should be discussed later, when the case of former admins be fully agreed. Now, about the matter in question in this section, I think there should be no special condition. If former admins answer and say they want to keep their rights, then they'll be just like our current admins, i.e., subject to the rule we will decide later. All in all, well, I actually propose that we stop discussing in this section!

Ok, so the admins that are absent right now will be asked to return. If they don't want to return, they are subject to the rule that we are creating right now. Hence the reason we need a solid rule, which is why we are debating this. 19:13, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, what we need to ask is if we're making a rule right now for all admins, or just a rule for the currently inactive ones. Personally, I think we need to treat the currently inactive admins differently than future inactive admins. 19:50, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the current admins should have a shorter response time considering how long they've been gone already. 20:08, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am for taking away inactive administrator rights. I also believe they should be given a short response time, perhaps 2 weeks, to get back to this wiki. I can confirm that YazzyDream will be easy to contact as I see her almost every day on wikia. Thank you. 00:10, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Tucky, EVERY admin is going to be equally easier to contact with as long as they log on to Wikia. When somebody notifies your talk page, you will get that message when you visit any site in the Wikia network. The only admin who won't follow this is Mugiwara, who, as far as we know, never uses Wikia. 14:15, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think that three months is enough. We can wait for an inactive admin to come back within three months, and if the admin do not come back within three months, we can strip his/her rights.

Also, if the admins come back, give us a valid reason for her/his absence, prove that he/she know any new policy or rule, or whatever that had occur during the absence, and is still a good editor, then we can return the rights. Sound good? The problem is we have to decide what is the valid reason. 00:26, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

So since we seem to have to decided to message the admins now, should we discuss rules for future inactive admins now or later? And should we do it in a new forum? 23:01, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, now. We can discuss the terms for inactive admins in here, as well, considering this is related to the topic of the forum. 23:06, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Let's restate the current proposal: I added the last rule, but everything else was discussed above. If there is anything else, please say so now. I generally think this is pretty fair. 02:54, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If an admin is gone for one month or more (without prior notice), someone can report said admin to a bureaucrat.
 * 2) The Bureaucrat removes the admin's rights. When the admin returns, he/she can appeal to the bureaucrat, who can then decide whether or not to grant them their rights again.
 * 3) If the absent admin has bureaucratic status, then judgement will wait until he/she returns. They can then appeal their case and if they lose, they lose all their administrative rights. The reason this is only bureaucrats is because it is a pain to go to Central and have them remove and re-grant bureaucratic rights.
 * 4) If a bureaucrat is absent for three or more months, then rights will be removed without an appeal.

Sound very fair. I like it, to be honest. Can we just go along with this? 02:57, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of rebuttal, I think that this rule is ok to implement. 19:14, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I like the rule, but I have some questions:

How does the appeal work? Is the reinstatement a decision made by only admins and is the rest of the wiki not involved in the decision? And is it only one admin who decides, or all of the admins? Does it happen in a forum or just on a talk page or something? 19:36, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, for the sake of speed and to make the process less complicated, I think that the appeal and the reinstatement should be done purely by the admins, who consult with each other and make a consensus. The appeal is basically a talk page message from the absent admin to an active admin asking for his powers back. 23:02, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * The active admins can decide on whether to give a former admin his or her extra rights back, or not. Make the process faster. We don't want to wait for a MONTH just so a former admin can gain his or her rights back. Because of this, no forums. The former admin can make an appeal on an active admin's talk. 16:17, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Are everyone fine with PX's suggestion? If not, then please inform us on here, because we need to get this out of the way as soon as possible. 16:17, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

If the decision is to be left up to admins, does that mean we should always try to have a certain number of admins in order to make that decision? Not that we should always try to have a certain number of admins, but that there should be a minimum number required to make decisions about reinstating inactive admins. I just wouldn't want the decision about whether or not an admin should be reinstated left to just one person. I think two or 3 admins should have to agree to a decision like that. 16:36, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think PX's rule is fair enough, but I'd like to stress that we don't really need to be extremely precise anyway. We cannot foresee all possibilies. Let it state that if they have a good reason for their absence, and/or said absence wasn't too long, a bureaucrat can give their rights back. Similarly, I'm not sure we should bother about the number of admins necessary… If there remains only one admin to make that decision, it's not an issue, for if the community doesn't agree, it's still possible to protest via a forum…

Exactly. This rule is meant to allow flexibility and show lenience towards some of the most important members of the wiki. JSD, I don't think we need a specific number of admins, but one person should not make the decision against the decision of the other admin. I think we have reasonable enough admins for this to happen smoothly. 00:27, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. I just wanted to get my concerns out there as well as help hammer out some specifics. My questions have been answered, so I'm down for it all now. 01:03, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm waiting for more people to input their opinion on PX's suggestion. If no one protest against the suggestion in the next few days, I'm taking that there are no objections in having PX's suggest as the policy for future inactive admins. 00:24, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Should we also make some additions that would prevent admins from repeatedly going inactive and regaining their powers on appeal. I think it would be a little ridiculous if an admin went inactive like 3 times in a year and got their powers back every time. Perhaps either a limit of times admins can be reinstated, or requiring a forum and poll in order to reinstate them after a certain number of reinstatements? 00:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Being inactive three times a year, no appeals for getting rights back. Enough said. We don't want an admin that keep becoming inactive. So yeah, a limit of times admins can be reinstated. 04:08, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PX. I didn&#39;t come here to paint eachother&#39;s nails like girls at a slumber party - I came here to kick your ass. If you have something to say, you can say it while I&#39;m cutting you to pieces! (talk) 22:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Due to lack of objections to PX's suggestion, can we go ahead and make his suggestion the new new for future inactive admins? I will give this two more days for any objections. If no objections are presented to the suggestion, I'll go ahead and consider PX's suggestion as the new rule for inactive admins and close this discussion. 22:31, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are no objections, so we pretty much should consider this the rule. Just to be on the safe side though, let's not close the the discussion until the time runs out for the currently inactive admins. 23:28, October 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly why I'm closing it two days later. 23:30, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

As an active admin, I agree. The rule is now active, and if the two admins do not respond then we strip them of their status, and we can start with selecting new admins. 23:37, October 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought that the above rule would be activated at 30 October. Isn't that the deadline mentioned by Jademing? As for selecting new Administrators, I think that there is not need for that yet; any needs we had have been covered so far with the numbers we have. MasterDeva (talk) 00:15, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhhhhh MasterDeva see you wouldn't know because you weren't back until recently. 04:51, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment doesn't make any sense, why leave a deadline in the talk page if we do not abide by it? Please explain yourself or get your facts straight. MasterDeva (talk) 11:28, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we can wait two days and see if anyone else has any objections. I there are none, then this becomes the rule. 14:03, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, everyone. The deadline for the current inactive admins to come back is in tow days, on 30 October, 2012. The deadline for the objections to PX's suggestion is tomorrow, 29 October 2012. If there is no objection to PX's suggestion by tomorrow, 29 October, then it will become a rule for future inactive admins. Is that cleared now? Again, sorry for the confusion. 18:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well today's the 29th, so this rule is now in place. 14:06, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

MasterDeva
It has come to my attention that MasterDeva has been using a loophole in the 30 day policy. He comes back once every 28 days, does a minimum of 10 edits, depending on the month. Why should he continue to remain admin? He isn't helping this community, and could just be replaced by a more deserving user (Though I don't think we need more than 3 Admins, since we manage just fine without him). We needed a frequent user who is willing to edit daily, who accept the responsibility's of being an admin. -- 20:33, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Besty!Yes,I firmly believe Deva should be demoted and another admin should be elected instead since,as you stated above,he is very inactive and edits once a months only because he wants to keep his admin status. 20:42, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I barely see him active anywhere, which can also be seen in his contributions. I think we should consider a serious discussion before choosing another admin since it's a pretty serious position, I mean I don't think a poll is enough, the higher-ups should all discuss it together who they think fit the position the most.

I agree Sewil.The admin position is a serious issue and a poll will not be enough to decide who really deserves the admin rights. 20:56, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well, I am an active user for only some months but I almost never saw him editing or helping the wiki in any way, not even participating in polls. Either he becomes active again or another one should become admin in my opinion. 22:11, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't be the only ones who decide who becomes a new admin. MasterDeva should be demoted but 3 active admins is enough and there isn't anybody who could replace him currently unless Levi changes his mind and wants it. SeaTerror (talk) 23:37, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Gal would be a good admin. 23:38, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Seaterror. Given that the three most active admins have been doing a good job as well as I can see, I don't think that we should hold admin nominations yet. Anyways, this is for discussing whether or not MasterDeva should keep his position, not whether or not we should have new admins. He's still an admin, so don't be jumping the gun. 02:28, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

There is no issue like a no issue is there? Work related issues have been keeping me busy that's why I haven't edited that much lately. I will be taking some time off this week though so I'll be able to cover a lot of lost ground. I am partly at fault for this situation, not updating people on the matter, it slipped off my mind completely and for that I apologise. MasterDeva (talk) 05:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

If you're really that busy with work then maybe it's not suited for you to be an administrator at the same time, you shouldn't see your position as a nuisance just to keep your position, but rather as something you have time with and enjoy doing. I don't know for what reason you're taking time off but if you're really stressed out at work you should spend that time on something more important rather than feeling forced to be active here.

Sorry Deva, but I agree with Sewil and the others here. If work has been keeping you busy for these past months then, as Sewil pointed out, you aren't really suited for the Admin position. It's not like you shouldn't prioritize work in such situations, but then again, that means that you are not suited to keep the position as long as you're "that" busy. Because as it is now, there's a lot of users more suited for the position than you. You shouldn't feel that you need the Admin position just for the sake of having it. WU out -  06:18, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

You've got it backwards I'm afraid, it's this particular time span that is so stressful and it hasn't been always like that. From what I can tell however, things should be starting to quite down. Anyway you should know that I'm editing here because I want to and neither is forcing me or I am forced to. If that wasn't the case I would have made an announcement informing people that I'm leaving the wiki. I don't know how you got the impression that I'm being forced into editing here to begin with, you are clearly jumping the gun. MasterDeva (talk) 06:22, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

That was not what I intended to mean in the first place, and I'm sorry if I made confusion. If things really have quited down and you don't feel like you are forced to edit on here, then I would like to see you as active as say, DP for example, who really deserve his Admin position. If you begin to edit as much as you once did in the past, then this discussion is pretty much solved, so if you look at it that way, it's actually your choice if you want to keep your position or not. WU out - 06:36, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I can understand what you mean, and I am partly at fault for this confusion since I didn't inform people about the issue. Once things start to quite down I should have more time to be flexible. Plus, I'm taking some time off and it should help me to ease up and relax a bit. I'll take things from there afterwards. Anyway, I apology for my part in this confusion that started it all. MasterDeva (talk) 07:27, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

You are taking some time off and then what?You will be busy again and you won't be able to help the wiki.An admin must be dedicated to the wiki,especially when our wiki has so many contributors and so many pages.And even if you think you are suitable for the admin position,you must at least give up your Bureaucrat rights. 08:22, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I love how MasterDeva has an answer for everything. 09:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean?

Exactly as the statement suggests. 09:47, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I do recommend that we keep four admins active at all times, and it does seem MasterDeva is using that loophole to keep his position, and if it persists, he should be demonted indeed. 18:20, March 17, 2013 (UTC)