Forum:New Administrators 2014

It has come to our attention that this site is in need of additional admins. Due to a vandal problem in the past few days, and that one of the three admins (I will not say any names) is rather inactive at times, we should elect some new admins to bolster our work forces; we cannot keep regular editors as temp admins for extended periods, it seems just... against the rules.

As a secondary opinion, we should discuss whether or not to remove the said inactive admin from the list, once we elected some new admins. 03:25, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't want to be an administrator. Not while the site in this state. For me to be one you current editors need to be gone while new ones pour in.

Joekido (talk) 03:29, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't recall inviting you. And aren't you one of the "current editors"? 05:13, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to invite me, I chose to post my message here. And when I say current users, I exclude myself. BTW people are not responding here

Joekido (talk) 05:20, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deva, maybe it would be best to just trade in his admin rights for rollback rights? He contributes fairly often, but almost all his edits are in image renaming, something that rollbacks can do now. In the past, I've defended Deva's rights since he was still technically active. But considering how he was just gone this past week during Galaxy's massive vandalism spree, I have serious doubts about how active he really is. Deva, you may come back and see this and have some response like "you guys should have asked me to help" or something like that. But we didn't have to ask Yata or DP, they monitored the activity and knew we had a problem, and I'm sure whoever we elect will be someone who won't need to be asked to watch out for vandals like Galaxy. So Deva, I ask that you step down as an admin and let someone who can commit more time to the job have it. You can trade for rollbacks and still rename images and be a helpful contributor to the wiki. Just let us move on to have more active editors and put this seemingly endless dispute about whether you deserve to be an admin to rest.

And how many admins are we looking to elect? Once we figure these issues out, we should move on to the nomination phase. 05:50, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Deva steps down, then I would suggest 3 new ones to be elected, so we can break ties when admins have to vote on certain issues. 06:23, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

"I don't want to be an administrator." Nobody asked you to be one, Joe. And nobody ever will. Anyway, I believe I suggested months ago that Deva gets demoted to rollback user since renaming images is the only thing he ever does on this wiki. Unless he steps down by himself, we can just have poll on his rights later. About adding new admins.. well 3 would be a good number if you can find enough people that want and deserve the position. 07:59, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

So is one of these 3 new admins, supposing that Deva steps down, going to get bureaucrat rights? 08:24, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * So it's going be a poll between JSD,Staw,Lel?..also I nominate Joekido.--

I actually want to nominate Zodiaque. 09:26, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the nominations out of it for now, and just focus on Deva, since now we know we want 5 total admins. 13:21, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

I was not active this past week because I was taking/trying to take care some business and got too preoccupied with that. I did not make a formal announcement in my talk page because I kept thinking "just one more day to end" and couldn't give an exact date. Seeing that it has become an issue I guess that since we approach the end of September it should be it for now. I wouldn't rule out though if it was over within the week. However, I can't say for sure though at this exact moment. I can say with certainty that I'll be available from the start of October.

Regarding the number of new administrators we should vote for I believe everyone here believes that at the very least we should elect one to fill in Sff9's position until he returns. This is something that was previously discussed but ultimately put on hold. Concerning the number of any admins on top of that, it will be something decided during this conversation. I will not mention any numbers for now until the discussion really picks up and see how it goes. MasterDeva (talk) 15:00, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh... You do know he stood down, right? He's not getting his rights back unless people ask him to take them back.

23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

We don't really have anybody who could make a good admin right now. SeaTerror (talk) 17:59, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

JSD says he doesn't want it, I dunno about Kage. How about whoever wants to be an admin, just sign your names below, and we can decide who has the right? That way, we won't have to worry about rejections from nominees. 18:09, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

I posted that before I made my way through all the talk pages. Temp admins are fine. I meant we don't have anybody that would make a good permanent right now. Except maybe Calu. SeaTerror (talk) 18:19, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

* Supports Calu*

I know that, I meant JSD did not want to be perm admin. 18:22, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to become a permanent admin if the people so decide. Too bad about JSD, I think he would've been great for the position. 18:41, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm willing to be a permanent admin. I'm just unwilling to be a temporary admin permanently, if that makes any sense. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I've turned down the chat mod nominations before since that would be too much of a time commitment for me, but I think I can be just as active as our current admins.

Personally, I'd say that anyone out of Zodiaque, Awakage, Calua, and Uknownada are qualified for the job. All are good, knowledgeable editors who can manage to keep things civil. 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, an inactive/not so active admin is not that big of a deal, but I'd remove his 'crats rights though... just elect any new admins to have a reasonable amount of them active all the time (like 2-3 more). Just pointing out that we are talking about admin rights, if we are giving 'crats then you should do a separate discussion.

Why do you want to have five admins in total, Yata? I'd like to know your reasonings, since we've always done well with only two active admins for years, and had no problems with it.

Also, if we're going to nominate people, I would strongly prefer it if we use a similar method from the last time we voted for new admins, instead of people nominating themselves for admins. 23:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we need two more admins. One more is urgently required, and two makes it an odd number to prevent split votes. I support JSD for admin, and have no current preference to the other.

23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, rather than just flailing blindly yet thoughtfully, let's make this simple. We'll consider two people for now, but that can be subject to reduction. Anyone who wants to nominate someone must meet the general poll requirements of working on here for at least three months with at least 300 edits to the mainspace, not including user pages or blogs. Candidates must have been active on here for at least a year with at least 1000 edits not including user pages or blogs. We'll keep the temps in place until the precedings are over and we have new people. Those elected will be given the non-bureaucratic sysop privileges. Nominations can last a week. Anyone who fits the prereqs and wants to nominate someone can drop the name of the person they wish to nominate followed by a short reason why that person was/should be chosen (when I say short, I mean 300 characters, at the very max, or two tweets and some change) in the soon to be created Nominations section. Once that has been done, the nominee must write "I accept" or "I decline" or words to that effect within 24 hours of being nominated otherwise it will be considered void and be subject to removal. Those voided without response can be renominated, but the same time limit will apply again. Should someone be nominated within 24 hours of the section's closing, they will have until the section closes to respond. Once that's done, voting will start and last for another week. See previous admin forums for how that's going to go down. First and second place become admins, third and down get the warm feeling of knowing some people thought them capable. Sound good? Of course it does. 03:34, September 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * And when voting happens, everyone gets two votes, right? 03:41, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, yes. That could be subject to change. 03:51, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

I wanted 5 admins for 2 reasons: There may be others, but these 2 are the primary reasons. 04:55, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) For good efficiency without having too much admins (3 is not enough, 7 is too much).
 * 2) In case admins are required to vote on certain matters, it will not end up as ties.

By the way, are we to consider that Deva is to be demoted? Because if he wants to keep his position but simply makes regular edits, then we should. 04:57, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Making it three is fine. Seeing as Deva has his own stuff to handle, let's not consider demotion at this time. 04:59, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

So we should nominate one more admin to make 4 (once Deva returns to full action)? Because some of us admins may go offline for certain periods of time, and it'd be best to have some extra backups. 05:04, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

We have to also decide which ones will be permanent and which ones will only be temp. SeaTerror (talk) 17:49, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, nobody mentioned electing temporary admins... 20:33, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

It was mentioned on talk pages. Which I already mentioned here. SeaTerror (talk) 20:43, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the three current admins are Yata, DP and Deva. How many new admins do you guys want to promote to rank up the total? DP suggests 3 admins is enough, but I do believe 5 would be better. If not, then at least 4, which was our favored number before Sff9 left. 01:19, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'd like to wait until the discussion for Deva's demotion is over, and then open the nominations, so we'll know how many new admins we'll need. Two admins if Deva keeps his position, three admins if he doesn't keep his position. Unfortunately for us, both nominations and discussion for Deva's demotion is open, so it's a little confusing and I don't know how many admins we should get right now, on account of the uncertain question of Deva keeping his rights or not.

Personally, five admins in total sound a little overkill, but I like having an odd number of admins, and I have absolutely no problems with having five admins. 01:49, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Actually we only need 2 since Sff9 was told he would get his adminship back. This would apply even if MasterDeva is demoted. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Sff would only get his adminship back IF he ever wanted to become an admin again, and active enough to be deemed an admin. 02:00, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like an odd number, either 3 or 5 seems ok to me. But obviously, if we don't demote Deva, then I'd say 5, because the way things are now is not ok.

And there's no problem with keeping the nominations going while we also discuss Deva's position, as long as we don't start the actual voting until we know how many spots are open. Nominating people shouldn't be affected by the number of slots that are open, but the actual voting would be. 02:20, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Should we really wait the whole week for nominations? Almost every active user who's eligible has already been nominated and responded. 22:42, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Considering last ahahahah that silly noob is very funny attack from Gal, maybe we need 20 admins, juts to be sure that there is always one of them to block him immediately. PS I hope that the long edit war about the images will be deleted: it's useless to show all the reverts caused by his behaviour. Meganoide (talk) 00:07, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well guys, I might have a problem here...

There's this new thing in my house where all tech goes off at 8:00. If I do become admin by some miraculous turn of events, then is 4 hours too little a time to be patrolling the site?

Also, yes, I support the 5 admins idea. --&#34;For once, I feel...hope overflowing on the Heavens and the Earth.&#34; - Amae Koromo (talk) 00:00, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Number of New Admins
So now that we know MasterDeva is resigning, we need to know how many admins we're going to elect. This section is for a focused, clear discussion about only that issue. State the number of admins you want in your first sentence. Hopefully we can figure out quickly if we need to poll this, or if there's a clear majority.

My personal belief is that we should go with 5 total admins (3 new appointments). With the recent increase in vandalism and the urge for admins having more power, having a larger pool of opinions (but still and odd number for admin-only votes) makes sense to me. We've gotten by with essentially 3 admins for years, but I'd like to see us strive with five. We need to grow. 22:15, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

By saying there is an urge for admins having more power, JSD you should state that is your opinion. How exactly does more admins allow us to grow please elaborate. Also, the increase in vandalism came from Gal and Gal alone, so i feel that statement was merely rhetoric. you make points yet don't elaborate. 22:24, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Five admins total. It should be an odd number, and three is simply not enough. We were going to have more regardless of whether or not Deva stepped down, so I don't understand why we'd get less now. 22:27, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Actually we were only going to get 2 if he had stayed. The issue we have is we just don't have enough people who would make good admins if we were electing 3 but electing two now would only equal four total. SeaTerror (talk) 22:32, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, in my urge to make posts that don't just get TL;DR type responses, I did leave a lot things out. My thoughts on admins having more power are in that forum I linked (so sad that it's being ignored in favor of joke nominations here). Personally, I don't want to get into those here. But I think having more admins, especially active ones, will allow us to get through conflicts like the long list of active discussions faster, leading to more real edits being made. The more admins there are, the more hands-on they can be in different sectors, like discussions, new user assistance, and even working more with Central to increase our visibility among wikias. And yeah, the increase in vandalism is mostly Gal, but we still have vandalism at the same rate as before, plus his new stuff. We shouldn't just assume that he'll go away eventually, and should prepare ourselves better in the future. We're only doing ok now because we have temp admins and help from VSTF. Does that help explain things better, MoM?

And ST, I hope you understand that your belief that we don't have 3 good candidates is an opinion others don't agree with. I'm going to have a very hard time deciding on 3 people to vote for, since I believe we have many good candidates. Not to say that your opinion is invalid, but you language is vague and doesn't suggest that it is a personal opinion. 22:38, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Again Awa makes rather shallow points here. "three is simply not enough", that sir is an opinion. we decided to have a formal discussion on the number, instead of implying that people wanted 2 or 3 or just to replace Deva. Now that we are having this discussion, i think it would be beneficial to elaborate on your opinions rather than to question why the discussion( which is already happening) is here.

I think you have moved into a good direction here JSD with your explanations. However, i think we should face a bit of reality here. Maybe if you were an admin you'd try and get Wiki to move this way. However, many of the other candidates i don't think have that vision. Discussions with more admins will just bring more red tape. Giving Admins more power will just cause an abuse of said power. Gal's attack if we had more admins would be cleaned up faster, one could argue. Yet his attack would be present regardless. New user assistance? I don't see an issue with how we handle new users currently.

22:47, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Five is a good number. I haven't seen any power abuse from our existing admins and if any new admins abuse their power, DP and Yata both have bureaucrat rights and can just demote them. We need an odd number to keep discussions from being deadlocked and this incident proved that three isn't enough anymore. 19:24, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

There has been alot of hype for this "Five is a good number" movement, i personally don't buy it. I urge other members not to fall into the hype. You not seeing any abuse of power, i think is not only a circumstance for you personally, but also because you have not been around as long as i have. I'm not saying Yata and DP abuse their power profusely, I'm saying there are certain instances of admins strongarming things. Also, Prevention is better than a cure. It is better to prevent an abuse of power rather than to cure it. Again, you make a point i have already addressed."this incident proved that three isn't enough anymore"; if we are just doing this because of this incident with Gal i would say that the purpose of new admins would be narrow minded because no matter how many users we admin'd a vandal could still strike. It seems you don't have much but the Gal incident to back up why three isn't enough. 19:39, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Having more admins wouldn't stop this from happening again but it would mitigate the damage done. Everyone's been arguing for five because we've established that having an even number would end up causing ties in debates. Seven admins would be too many and three wouldn't be enough. Having five admins would also lighten the workload for each individual admin so it wouldn't be too big of a deal if one had to go inactive for a little while. 20:22, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Agreeable. I would say 5 is a good number, so I wouldn't have to constantly hunt down bad images all by myself. 20:28, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

The damage would still be done. Even if we could clean it up 5 seconds after the vandal did it, the vandal will reach his goal regardless. I'm arguing for 3 so you can stop beating the odd number horse. You still haven't told me why three isn't enough. If anything it sounds like you guys are arguing for more active members. You did not respond to some of my other concerns. 20:38, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Gal isn't the first serial vandal like this and this whole incident showed that we needed at least four active admins to mitigate the damage and we've already agreed that we need an odd number. As for your concerns about power abuse and dragging out discussions, all I can say is vote for people you trust to be responsible. 21:33, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

You weren't even a member yet when that guy edited. Besides that it's old and you didn't show any examples of that guy vandalizing anything. Right now what MoM is saying is right. SeaTerror (talk) 21:38, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Your points about vandalism make no sense, MoM. Obviously it's better if the damage is there for only 5 seconds rather than staying there for hours, during which visitors could see it. And banning the vandal prevents further damage. 21:43, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Awa maybe my points about vandalism make no sense because you're misinterpreting them. "5 seconds" was merely a hypothetical figure. My point there was that no matter how quickly you revert the vandal (if he/she works hard enough) they will still have an effect. The last statement you made was merely rhetoric, even you know that banning only goes so far, as seen in the Gal scenerio 21:51, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we seem to be focusing more on the vandalism part, I'll focus on that too. The vast majority of vandals don't end up using multiple IPs for their vandalism and stop after 1 ban. And MoM, the real damage in vandalism is not that it's done, but how long it's left up for our readers to see. And obviously, in situations where that's happening, we generally have users reverting it, even if no admins are on. But we don't want to make people slave like that when having more admins (more specifically, more admins online) can stop the wave of vandalism in one swipe. So in that regard, having more admins is helpful for combating vandalism. And with Gal, when an IP is banned, he does have to slow down to reconnect with a new IP at least, so even then having more admins is helpful. 22:18, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

i would like to thank JSD for making some valid points. The reason I'm thanking him is because those points sway in the benefit of the argument for 3 admins. If what JSD is saying is true, that most vandals retreat after the first ban. then there really is not a need for more admins, to deal with these singular issues that happen ever so often on this wiki. When you and Awa were temp'd we technically had 5 admins. Maybe people don't know but Gal attacked yesterday, for a decent amount of time and still had to be dealt with, mostly by regular users from what i saw. So at the time we had 5 admins, yet vandalism still had its effect. JSD i think you have to agree with me on this one, its almost hard not to agree that vandalism is not a legitimate case to appoint 3 new admins. 22:44, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

We technically had five yesterday but considering Deva's inactivity, we really just had four. I don't think anyone here would abuse their power if they were appointed so it couldn't hurt to at least try having five. If it doesn't work, we could just demote two and then we'll know. It's not like that would cause any huge issues. 23:02, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, holes can always happen (like they did yesterday), but you can't deny that the holes are bound to happen less often when there are more admins. That's why we can say 3 is not enough. The reason why we have temp admins right now has been to cover holes, a goal we've accomplished mostly except for yesterday and a few other smaller instances. It was obvious in the first days of Gal's adventure that the holes were way too big. A VSTF I got to come by to help out remarked to me that "wow, you guys only have 3 admins for a wiki this big?". It's not the standard for most communities because it's hard. So I'd like to say that my point stands this time.

Also, if you want to talk about possible power abuse, Forum:New Editing Policies is the place to do that. I think the terms being discussed there are reasonable and aren't likely to lead to too much trouble. But you have to actually read that forum to understand why. 23:07, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Five's probably the better way to go. For me personally, the issue is timezone coverage (since I'm on the other side of the world from most people here), and three isn't really enough, especially if they're all in America. Having five would also lower the pressure if anyone needed to step down for whatever reason. 07:55, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

I also think that 5 admins is the best number, and please, not all of them Americans... When sff and Deva were admins, european timezones were also kinda covered, but now the only admins we have left are americans. 08:02, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Kage has the other half of the world covered. So Kage can do that. SeaTerror (talk) 08:17, September 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think 5's a good no. too coz we need admins who can cover vandalism,css/js,templates,article-context,blogs,general coding,etc.--

Seems like a no-contest here. 5 admins (elect 3 new ones). 17:45, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman, Gentleman, Gentleman. You all make some decent points (most have been brought up before but its whatever). All im saying is that we need a better reason to appoint 3 NEW admins. JSD you've been quoting that VSTF yet its still not a good enough reason. Vandalism is not a legitimate reason, simply because they are singular incidents and if they aren't singular incidents we can just temp people til they go away. I find it funny people are just pushing nominations now. to respond to Roa, i've already addressed the issue you brought up. That is an issue of more active users than anything. And Lastly i want to thank Yata for wrapping up the discussion before i was finished discussing. 19:10, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

He wrapped up the discussion because there's a clear majority here. And it would be optimal to have enough admins that temporary admins wouldn't be needed at all. 21:58, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Lets be frank we all know the clear majority here the main issue is concerns with the new number. many of my concerns have still not been properly answered. and Yet AGAIN i must BEG, please ELABORATE on why its more optimal; or stop with this charade that vandalism is a legitimate reason to appoint 3 NEW admins. Even though i don't agree with JSD at least he's giving some good backing rather than shooting responses like he's an automated phone service. I feel like this is a multiple choice test most of the people didn't prepare for, so they're just scribbling in random answers. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants 3, so stop treating it like a non-issue, more people have concerns, even if it is a no contest, the conversation has not ended. I found it highly disrespectful( maybe its because im not used to forum discussions ending). it was the equivalent of packing your bags before the professor is done, because what he's saying doesn't matter. Maybe im just overly sensitive, but at least wrap up. 00:04, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as rude, I really didn't mean to be; I've been trying to answer your concerns as best I can. I just can't really explain a reason that doesn't involve vandalism since that's a large portion of what admins do. Having more would also take the pressure of individual admins. Deva's inactivity as an admin has been such a big deal because that lowers the number of active admins by a third. I know we can always appoint temporary admins, but we shouldn't have to. DP had to do the same thing a while back because some vandal was uploading porn and he needed help deleting it. Redundancy would make everyone's job easier. 01:05, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

The general rule for forum discussions, MoM, is that if there's a clear majority among the people that have posted in the forum, then we can bypass a poll to save time and effort. I think we've got that here, but maybe you could get others who agree with you to post here too and change that. (Just don't be too heavy-handed in how you go about that) Personally, I think vandalism is the main reason because it's really about the time coverage of admins. You keep focusing on things like the number of vandals, and the number of pages they impact, but it's really things like how long it takes before they're banned, and the amount of time the pages are left in their vandalized state that matter to that point. If you don't understand that, we're getting to the point where we're just going to argue about the same things, and we need to end the discussion. Right now, we're ending it with a clear majority in favor of three new mods. 04:09, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

If we were going by time coverage then we would only need to elect Kage and the forum could end since he can cover that half of the world. Time coverage really isn't a valid excuse either because there will always be gaps. SeaTerror (talk) 04:24, September 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * There will always be gaps, yes. But it's about minimizing the chance of gaps, since that chance can never be eliminated. Also listen to yourself for a minute "Kage can cover that half of the world." Do you really think it's reasonable to expect one person to cover half the world? There's no backup in that. And time coverage isn't the only issue (though it is a large issue), and the community's decision will reflect a number of issues, I'm sure. Personally though, I'm much more comfortable in the hands of 5 active admins than only 3 active admins. There are so many users on this wiki whom I would trust to treat us fairly, and I really think any possible power abuse with 5 admins is a non-issue for us. In fact, I'm really having trouble picking only 3 people for the position, since there are so many exceptional people in this community. 04:45, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Time to for me to also give my two cents. I've read about the conversation so far and I must say that I share Man of Myth's concerns. This gentleman has been standing alone against you. Now, he doesn't say that we don't need five admins; he just isn't sure why we need five admins. Well, it's not easy to stand alone against the peer pressure of others, I thought he needed support... and I'll give it to him. I respect his motives. We probably do need five administrators, but I want to hear more of him. To counter a recent argument brought by Videogamep, people with access to bots can mass delete images uploaded by any single user. Just like you said both Yatanogarasu and I had delete those same porn images but we had mostly support from a Wikia Helper to resolve the whole issue. That was Yatalu (or Yatta) the same user I mentioned below.

In the past, when we had to rename a file we had to manually edit every single post the file was used in. Now that job is covered mostly by a script except for blog comments. It would be no exaggeration to say though that in the future that too would be handled by the same script. Also with the introduction of more advanced vandalism pattern detection for bots, an administrator's involvement is reduced even more. That does not mean that we do not need administrators, but we can minimise the time it takes to handle some things. Be it files, blanking pages or anything else. I would like to hear more concrete reasons entertaining to the number of admins we need, as well as how the workload will be distributed between them. That would also include timetables so we can see how much of the wiki will be covered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. MasterDeva (talk) 08:14, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note before going to bed. What MasterDeva said would mean we would need to extend the nomination period or put the main voting on hold. SeaTerror (talk) 08:17, September 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be correct. The burden of proof falls on the ones who wish to pass number five as the "correct" number of administrators to have. This topic isn't merely about "voting" how many admins we feel we need but why and how should those admins be used. We need solid arguments. Sure there might be gaps but let's talk about numbers and tasks here. The topic is important enough to spare the time and energy to use. I believe the parties interested wouldn't have trouble talking about it if they are so sure of their opinion. It would also benefit the community by hearing what those people have specifically in mind on how to run this wiki. MasterDeva (talk) 09:00, September 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * In future,bots will edit also edit articles and make blogs.--

I would like to show humility, and kindly beg for forgiveness from Video. I got a bit too spirited because i do care for the wellness of this wiki. It was rather detrimental to the conversation and I'm really sorry. However i feel like I'm beating a dead horse here with these arguments.I'm not arguing we need more security for vandalism. JSD stated himself, that vandalism is usually singular incidents. We all know that appointing Admins for time coverage could be detrimental. I'm saying because of the nature of vandalism, it is Not a valid reason to appoint 3 new admins.This discussion has made me realize just how invalid of a reason it is. I've made up my mind on that concern of mine.Furthermore there has been arguing for Admins to do more tasks. I understand the point that it sort of reduces the task load of other Admins in cases of dealing with the users. However, like Deva said, you would need some evidence to say that these new Admins would alter their edit behavior. Most people will edit the same way they edit, and them being Admins is not really necessary.Therefore i feel that argument is only asking for more active users. Also, inb4 select the right people for admin argument. 14:42, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

It's fine; no offense taken. I do think new admins would alter their edit behavior somewhat, or at least edit more, especially if admins were given more power since the new admins would be able to do more. 15:49, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry MoM, but isn't your statement of "We all know that appointing Admins for time coverage could be detrimental" just as vague and meaningless as some of the points against you that you've pointed out before? After reading that statement, I my first thought was "I do?" I honestly don't see how appointing more admins for time coverage could possibly be detrimental, and I wish you could elaborate more on that. 16:25, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say another 3 admins would be good for a total of 5. 20:03, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry JSD, i almost did not know how to phrase it, is why its so vague. i meant to say, (please ask me to explain again if this is confusing), That if we elected admins based on the time zones they cover. Then it'd be detrimental to the wiki because maybe ( i sort of implied people would deduce this), we would not be appointing people who are best fit for the job. Lets say for instance. I, MoM, lived in New Zealand. You, JSD, lived in America. You JSD clearly being a better candidate than me, MoM, would not become admin simply because me, MoM, lived in time zone that is not covered. You, JSD, stated before that we need more admins to grow. So i made a reference(not really a reference but i cant think of the proper word) by using the word detrimental. I agree i was really vague and assumed people would get it. And ass the old adage goes, Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. 20:20, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

I would say 4 total to be honest. That worked out perfectly before. People seem to want an odd number for some reason right now so I also support 3. MoM said what was needed especially. Timezone doesn't actually matter but if a person would be a good admin or not. SeaTerror (talk) 20:31, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Well, MoM, that just seems like more proof for 5 total over 3 then. If you have more admins to elect, you don't have to make such as difficult decision for one slot over timezone vs. general capability. You can pick and choose a few choices and have timezone as a main consideration, but not the ultimate deciding factor. That's what I plan to do with my votes, anyways. I would be very hard pressed to come up with a solution for that problem if I only had one option to vote for. But that's just my two cents.

Anyways, even though this discussion isn't actually totally dead in the water yet, I still think we have an example of a clear majority here. By my/Kage's count, it's 8-2 in favor of 5 total admins (Deva's opinion is vague), and with the vast number of people who have posted on here, I think it's fair to say that the majority is clear. The nomination period ends in about 6 hours, so I think closing this via clear majority is a pretty good option when compared to wasting more time on a poll. 22:05, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Anything more then 10 is absurd. Something should be around 6-8. I do think 5 is a good idea, but some admins are a little less focused on this wiki. This is not a calling out to any admins, but a fact. Too many could be a little hard to have some freeway. I think 7 or 8 is the best thing to have.

Nobody700 (talk) 00:10, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

So, I'd like to have an odd number of admins, because then we can have a majority among the admins, instead of a tie between the admins. I think a lot of people also think this way and as such, want an odd number of admins.

But that brings us to the question of having 3 or 5 admins overall. Personally, I prefer having five admins, but honestly, I'm not against having three admins. I'd like to have five admins, to lessen the workloads on the admins, and having five active admins will certainly help combating vandalism, as well as increase general capabilities done by the admins on the wiki. But yeah, like I said before, having 3 or 5 admins don't really matter to me, as long as they are capable of carrying out their responsibilities and are effective. 00:59, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

JSD i know this conversation is all but over. but right there you're almost putting words in my mouth ( for lack of a better way to phrase it). I made it clear that i was arguing time zone is NOT an issue valid enough for me to cast my vote for someone. I understand if thats a point you're making for more slots of admins as you have an array of reasons to choose, however the valid the reasons may be. To explain, you stated "Well, MoM, that just seems like more proof for 5 total over 3 then. If you have more admins to elect, you don't have to make such as difficult decision for one slot over timezone vs. general capability." that is not what i was saying/implying. if you apply my argument then the only reason to elect an admin is general capability. which is to say timezone should NOT be a reason/one of the reasons an admin is selected.04:46, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

In other words, time zone can be A reason but not THE reason for making a decision to cast a voice. I can understand and agree to that much. For posterity's sake I believe that both DancePowderer and Yatanogarasu should post their time zone and general hours of coverage so we can work around them. Once that's covered we can talk about how the workload can be shared between the administators (new and old) based on the current administrators' activities. MasterDeva (talk) 12:03, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

In light of recent events I'll leave this here. MasterDeva (talk) 14:03, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything going on. SeaTerror (talk) 16:41, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

It is for the benefit of this wikia to have a substantial discussion about the issues mentioned above instead of directly skipping them. Which is exactly what has happened here. MasterDeva (talk) 17:00, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

How about we make DP the sole dictator of this wiki. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:34, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Joking is good and all but to quote a previous administrator of the wiki, "Too much reliance on the voting system. Democracy is a good idea but not necessarily applicable in every area. ...alot of decisions seem to be based merely on votes rather than arguments" and considering that this is arguably the most important election since the creation of the wiki we should spare the effort to do it right. MasterDeva (talk) 18:50, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Voting really is the only way to go. We should not just let admins make decisions. Besides that people ignore discussions and just vote even if the arguments for the other side are better. SeaTerror (talk) 18:53, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about just the admins. Everyone should contribute to this discussion and voice their opinion. Any admin's vote counts the same as a user's. This has always been the case. You are right that people are ignoring discussions some times and just vote away but isn't it time that changes? MasterDeva (talk) 18:58, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about votes. I meant admins not being allowed to just make decisions without any discussion. Also there is nothing that can be done to change that. SeaTerror (talk) 19:02, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is this going on. Also, Man of Myth said something quite interesting a few posts above. To quote him, "I think you have moved into a good direction here JSD with your explanations. However, i think we should face a bit of reality here. Maybe if you were an admin you'd try and get Wiki to move this way. However, many of the other candidates i don't think have that vision" which could be used to describe the entirety of the community instead of just some of the candidates. It takes more than one person to bring change in this wiki. A joint effort between the administrators and the community (at the very least most of the regulars) to try and change the way things work. It might not work but at least something might come out of it instead of not trying at all. MasterDeva (talk) 19:16, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

That forum has nothing to do with what you are saying. You're talking about ignoring votes in favor of just discussions. SeaTerror (talk) 19:22, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

I did not say such thing! What I did say though is to have a discussion first instead of just voting. MasterDeva (talk) 19:33, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

That's how we already do it. SeaTerror (talk) 20:04, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

A proper discussion though contains arguments. This one hardly had any. It was mostly "passion" over reason. All the more so considering it takes place to decide important issues. The whole thing seems rushed and poorly handled which not how it should be at all. MasterDeva (talk) 20:16, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of discussions just keep going with no end in sight. I have no problem with debating a topic if I think it will accomplish something, but a lot of these discussions don't accomplish anything and just lead to both sides repeating arguments, which wastes everyone's time and delays any action. When something is this important, we shouldn't drag it out after there's a clear majority. 21:43, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the real problem is that there was no debate to begin with. Can you honestly say there has been an exchange of arguments in this discussion? Just because there is a clear majority doesn't mean that the decision is right. Mugiwara Franky's words demonstrate that best. MasterDeva (talk) 21:52, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Voting, in my humble opinion, should be done for minor things. Admins are the final law. If they choose to enforce the law, then they enforce it. We are voting only on minor things as well. If a law is unpopular, we can not vote for it to change, but vote to ask to change it. Admins are the dictators of this wiki. We are it's servants. If you don't agree, make your own wiki.

Nobody700 (talk) 21:56, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Following that reasoning, if you don't like what I say you should make your own wiki... That kind of circular reasoning does not work. Yes, the admins can circumvent polled results if there is an important enough reason for it (e.g. toggle feature) but this not what this discussion is about. MasterDeva (talk) 22:28, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

I do think there were arguments exchanged here. The problem with letting everything go until the debate is over is that some forums/talk pages will end up like this, which is just unproductive. 00:21, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

MasterDeva's Rights
So, are we going to keep Deva's rights? As you can see in my previous post, I support a demotion. 15:08, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Read what DP said, Staw. 15:18, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support removing Deva's admin rights. At the very least, demote him to be a rollback, considering he's been doing pretty much what any rollback are doing, when he's active. 15:52, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to take Deva's rights away. Taking them away seems cruel to me at this juncture. However, I also strongly believe that he's not being a very good admin when compared to the performance of the other admins. I think there are several candidates who are more capable of being an active and effective admin than Deva who have already been nominated. My main concern is how everything with Deva seems to need be asked for. I don't want an admin who I have to ask to participate in wiki activities, I want one who will be an active participant (not just merely an active editor) without needing to be asked. Every time we've discussed Deva's inactivity, we've been met with some kind of excuse about how he has been busy in real life, and after a certain point, I began to seriously doubt that Deva could ever reach the level of activity (one again, actively pursing admin actions, not being an active editor) that I would find satisfactory. When Sff9 realized that he had too many obligations in real life to keep up with things here, he resigned, and I'm asking you Deva to do the same thing. Honestly ask yourself: "Are my obligations in real life ever really going to decline, and are they really a legitimate excuse?"

I really don't mean to disrespect you, Deva, (which is why I don't want to take your rights) but as an editor, I see you have the potential to be a great contributor to this wiki, but my faith in you as an admin just doesn't really exist anymore. I ask for you to seriously think about what would be best for the wiki, not your own self-interest here when you ask yourself if you're fit to be admin. Thanks. 21:52, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Deva rarely edits, and whenever he edits, there's usually a few weeks gap of inactivity between the rare moments of editing. As a regular/rollback user, it would not be a problem at all, but he has responsibilities as an admin, and as such, should treat it as so. He clearly haven't been a responsible admin, being frequently inactivate, coming up with excuses for his inactivity all the time, and always has to be asked for to participate in the community. Seriously, are these actions appropriate for an admin? No, they are not.

We need active admins for such a large and active wiki, and Deva's just not that active, nor was he that active for a long time, to take participate in the wiki as an admin, so I'd like to demote him, and replace him with someone who can do the job better, and save us some trouble.

Deva'll still be recognized as a highly respected editor who contributed so much to the wiki, even if he is not an admin anymore. If you guys are still so obsessed with keeping Deva's rights, just demote him to a rollback user, he can still do pretty much the same as before, renaming images and the likes.

Deva, I recognize that you are probably actually busy with obligations in real life, but you've been inactive for years, due to your life, while saying that you'll be active later on when you'll have more time. Are you seriously keep putting up the pretense of ever being truly active on the wiki as an admin later on forever? It's already been years, and I don't think you'll ever be as active as you once was, or at least, be active enough as an admin. Think about what JSD said, and follow Sff's steps. 01:08, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree, Deva. You need to think thoroughly, see how active you can be as an admin, and decide for yourself whether you want to remain an admin or pass your title to someone else. I wouldn't remove your status against your will, that'd be an insult to your hardships in the past. So please tell us what you think. 01:15, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Um, hey all, we might have a problem here...

Deva is a bureaucrat. And not even other bcrats can demote other ones. --I&#39;m not a coward I&#39;ve just never been tested; I like to think if I was I would pass (talk) 02:12, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of the community agrees to demote a bureaucrat, staffs will demote him for you. 02:14, September 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Crats can demote themselves;I dont support Deva's rights being taken away.--

Yeah, 'crats can demote themselves. Also I'm an helper, so I can demote him *cough* I outrank all of you *cough*.


 * Levi, suddenly I'm seeing you in a whole new light ( *^*)

Well, since Deva has shown he doesn't want to get demoted and we need to decide how many new admins to elect, wouldn't a poll on his rigths be the fastest solution here? 16:42, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Let him at least post on this section first... 18:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

You want to wait a month before he comments? SeaTerror (talk) 20:28, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we give him a couple of days to respond and then continue with this if he doesn't.  21:59, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

So how long should we wait for Deva's answer? We should hope it'd be soon as we would like to promote some new admins. 00:02, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I left a message for him earlier today. I say we give him another day to respond, otherwise we continue with this. 00:06, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait a day for Deva to defend his position on here, and afterwards, regardless of whether he comments or not on here, I say let's take it to the poll. It'll be the quickest solution to figure out if he should keep his rights or not, and then we can proceed on with the election for the new admins. 02:12, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Deva has yet to respond, and the wiki shows that he has logged in today at 12 UTC. Personally, I think he has seen the various messages left on his talk regarding this forum and chosen not to respond. I believe it's important given the time-sensitive nature of this issue, we should open the poll right away. Nominations are set to end on the 30th, and I believe a poll that ends on that same date is necessary. We've all been aware of this thread for days, so I believe bypassing the test phase of the poll is ok. Simple 2 option poll: Remove his admin rights Yes or No. Anything about his future as an editor (ex rollback rights) is irrelevant to this forum and does not need to be discussed until the close of this issue. 19:58, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't even wait until the weekend so I could have some time to respond properly could you...? Anyway I step down as an administrator. I had already decided long before that if it ever became an issue for the wiki I would do so, and so I am. I'll write down more about it later. MasterDeva (talk) 21:15, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Since Deva has stepped down, the poll should close as well. 21:33, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

In response to what JustSomeDude said above, unless it is the result of a misunderstanding, which I will then retract this statement, you chose to interpret what I once said however it suited yourself to save face. Heck you couldn't even bother to wait until the first of October even though I said that I would be free by then... What I said about dropping a message in my talk page was in response to some specific "running jokes" statements that happened because people were apparently "caring" or so I was told. I thought you realised that but then again I guess it is much easier if the talk page is named, for example, Yatanogarasu instead of MasterDeva. However not so long ago I did not have any problems dealing with Trirf123/Toduh69 who uploaded porn/corpse images and without being "asked" about it. The Wikia Helper Yatalu was kind enough to help me and mass delete all of them. I see though that it is much easier jumping to rushed conclusions and trying to appear as a white knight in shining armour. MasterDeva (talk) 09:00, September 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * The example you decided to bring up is not really right. As somebody who was online that day, I remember having to deal with that guy in chat for hours along with some other users, until Yatalu finally banned him and deleted his edits a few hours after he started. Then, you just went and made the bans permanent. So yeah, you didn't "deal with him". Oh and look! You actually were asked to do it. 09:30, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, you do not know how to read... I initially banned Trirf123, Toduh69 and Toduh69 for one year because at the moment I was unable to remember the permanent ban option. That happened an hour before Yatalu posted that message. In other words I changed the ban length to "1 year" a few minutes after Yatalu and changed it again to permanent about an hour later before she posted that message. You would have understood that if you bothered to read the post directly above. MasterDeva (talk) 09:51, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm way too lazy to look for the logs, so I'll give you this one. Even if that's the case, do you expect that this is enough to keep your rights, Deva? Thank you so much for banning two vandals since you became an admin like 3 years ago, it's totally something very few people could manage to do.. And it really is much easier if the talk page is named Yatanogarasu or DancePowderer instead of MasterDeva because, fortunately, we don't need to beg them to do their job, they do it because they want to. On the other hand, as far as i can remember you've only done your job when you get a talk page message for a specific task, because you can't just say "no i'm not doing it". And don't bring up the image renaming thing, because you only started this whole bussiness so that you could keep the rights you love so much. Been a year since rollbacks can also do those things though and here I am surprissed you're still not demoted to one yet. And I'm sorry if I "didn't bother" to read your message carefully because, it's exactly a bother to me to read this kind of bs drama posts. And I'm also very sorry that I'm not going along with the drama you're trying to create here, It's just not my thing. You already claimed you step down man, just do us a favor and remove your rights. 10:09, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Stop making a fool of yourself Staw-Hat Luffy. I did not ask anyone to keep my admin rights as you can read above so stop making things up and neither have ask people to beg me. I've specifically mentioned the reasons above. If you are incapable of understanding that then do not bother trying to talk about it. Regarding the "image renaming thing" you've mentioned above is simply your opinion and not a fact. In spite your claim to not bother with "drama posts" here you are "bothering" and writing about it, ha! The things I wrote above are something that I felt needed to be said, otherwise I wouldn't bother writing about them. I know that you do not like me and you wouldn't miss on a chance to attack me but try to show restrain. As I said I will remove my rights after I'm finished going through some things that require them. No need to worry about going back on my word. I'll remove them within the weekend. So do me a favor and drop the drama. MasterDeva (talk) 10:26, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Look, dude, I can't deny that I started going back to DP and Yata's talk pages after awhile. But I did that because I had a guarantee that they would actually log on to the wiki the same day I made a post. I simply ran out of issues that weren't time-sensitive to put on your talk, or maybe I ran out of patience for waiting to get things done. It's not just the past weeks with Galaxy that have been the problem, it's been this way for months, years even. Even after all that, I still don't know if I would have voted your rights away though. So don't go assuming that I was rushing this poll to take your rights away. I'm really glad you've decided to step down, because it saves us from having to have an argument at least twice as rough as this one. I started the poll because we needed an answer regardless of the outcome quickly. I really don't want to be in the position of temporary admin for weeks. We needed to know how many admins we were going to elect before the nominations ended, and I'm sorry that wasn't made clearer sooner.

I want to say more on this topic, but I need to get to work today, so I'll be back later. 11:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do so. I'm really looking forward to read what you have to write, so please be open and honest. Otherwise I wouldn't have written the above post about you in the first place. MasterDeva (talk) 11:31, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

"Regarding the "image renaming thing" you've mentioned above is simply your opinion and not a fact. " That is just plain not true. Staw's "opinion" is actually fact since anybody could go through your contributions to see just how true that is. It started with your original unadmin forum. SeaTerror (talk) 17:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Just leave it be. He already said he would step down so any arguing now is just a waste of time. 19:24, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Nominations
The Nomination period ended at 04:00 UTC, September 30, 2014.

1) User:Roranoa zoro 15:09, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept.--

2) User:Joekido (nullified), User:Staw-Hat Luffy, User:Awaikage or User:MasterDeva(if demoted) --
 * He said "bro accept quick" so ok ;) 15:48, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept. 16:24, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The main drive for being elected an admin was mainly maintenance stuff. Specifically file management. If I can still do that as a rollback user, albeit restrictively, I won't opt for adminship. MasterDeva (talk) 09:15, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

3) User:JustSomeDude..., User:Uknownada, and User:Videogamep 15:23, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept. 15:27, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I...accept. 21:17, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I should drop out of this. I'm not sure I really deserve nor will make use of the title. 13:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept. 18:08, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

4) User:Zodiaque 15:47, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept. 04:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

5) User:Calua 15:51, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept my nomination. 21:40, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

6) User:SeaTerror The Will of Deez (talk) 20:46, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Wat. I accept. SeaTerror (talk) 22:53, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

7) User:Jademing The Koromo
 * I accept the nomination. 00:17, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

8) User:The_Koromo SeaTerror (talk) 23:00, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Hey, it's worth a shot. The Koromo

9) User:Ryuzakiforever and User:Kaizoku-Hime 01:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * I decline. This time. 02:28, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept. 海賊☠姫 (talk) 07:35, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

10) User:Man of Myth is Dayman 02:34, September 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * I refuse. 02:37, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

11) User:Fintin SeaTerror (talk) 18:57, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept. 19:05, September 26, 2014 (UTC)