Forum:Demoting Admins

It has come our attention that most of our "admins" are not active, and some have left the wiki and even asked that they be demoted. On chat, I asked the users on there which admins/bureaucrats they wanted to demote. Below, you can find a full list of admins:

Bbhinton15, Fadingsilverstar16, Gideoncrawle, Goldenshane, JustLittleOlMe, Kenzen11, Nalyd Renrut, Owenguy101, Reddude, Rhonda the stalker fan!, Sprinklemist, Sunshineandravioli, Toadgamer80, and Webly.

We would like to demote BB, Gigi, Kenzen, Nalyd, Sprink, Sunshine, and Webly. Again, this is nothing personal guys, this is for the wiki's best interest. Some of these admins are beuracrats, and so we need the wiki majority to demote them when we mail Wikia. So, if you would like to demote all these admins, say so. If you would like to demote some of these admins, say which ones. And if you would like to not demote any of these admins, and you feel that the wiki is in a very good position at the moment, say so.

Thanks.

--Drink cactus juice! It'll quench 'ya! 17:49, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed Nonny and Spenny from the list. They were demoted months ago. Gideoncrawle I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  02:10, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support
I disagree with Sunshine and BB's demotion though- Sunshine was just on a few weeks ago, and even if BB isn't on as much due to college, he was just promoted recently. For sale:  baby shoes,   never worn.  13:13, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Drink cactus juice! It'll quench 'ya! 17:59, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I want this to happen Brony forever till I die.  Not before then.  17:50, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree for every single one being demoted. Sorry guys. ~Jake R: Welcome...  stalkers!  17:51, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This needs to happen ~ 17:52, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Mmhmm. We found dove in   a soapless place  ...  17:58, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) See above. Trey. It's short for Treyquisha. 18:07, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with them all. Sorry guys, but if we're gonna have wiki admins, they need to be more active than this. Well, except for Webly, who announced plans of return. But otherwise, yes -- o wate u men blo ive?  yes sory i get dem mixed up,  i did perchese ur coluered child  17:52, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Same with CK, but I also don't think we should demote Sunshine, Kenzen or BB. Toadgamer80 GRAH-GOOGLY! 18:33, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with all of them to be honest. None of them really do anything for the wiki, and are inactive. Case close. Buh-bye inactives, hello actives. -- Happy Hunger Games!  May the odds be  ever in your favor!  22:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with CK. :3 "The best part is   when we go   to the whale!"  02:23, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I think we should demote them all and kind of... reboot, if you will. I imagine some would get their positions back, but I think it's a good idea to start over with no admins and have the community choose from there.--Radical M I was going to make song lyrics as my signature  but that's too mainstream 03:19, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) The only one on the list whom I can wholeheartedly support demoting is Gigi. I love her like a daughter, but it's increasingly looking like she's gone for good. During one of her increasingly brief returns, she asked me to do something adminly for her, and expressed surprise when I told her that she was still an admin herself. Clearly, she no longer sees herself as an admin even though she still has the title; and if she loses that title, she clearly won't miss it. (P.S. @Radi: if we demote all the admins, then anyone would be able to petition Wikia Central to "adopt" the wiki, thereby becoming the only b-crat and effectively taking over. Kevvy once took over Josie's wiki that way.) Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I-- 03:57, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not true about someone adopting the wiki. The wiki needs to go unedited for three consecutive months without an admin editing there. If we had the active admins still, it wouldn't happen. ~Jake R: Welcome...  stalkers!  14:58, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) From what Gid has said about Gigi: demote. As I recall, Sprink asked to be demoted. Those are the only 2 I support demoting at this time. Jay JLOM Things turn out for the best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out - John Wooden 07:00, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I support that Nalyd, Sprink, Kenzen, Gigi, and possibly Webly. Nalyd, while he has undeniably been a huge part of Wiki history, really isn't here very much anymore, and when he is, he certainly isn't doing anything deserving of the Admin-title, he mostly just posts updates to a story (and even that isn't too often). Sprink and Kenny both asked to be demoted, so there really isn't any arguement there. Gigi, as Gideon said, doesn't even seem to remember she's an admin anymore, so again, that's no question. And although Webly left and has stated plans for return, truth be told, even when he was still active on wiki, although this may just be my bad memory, I don't remember him ever deleting pages or doing anything really "admin-like", and he didn't have the benefit of being on all the time either unlike some other admins who don't delete pages.
 * 1) I support with most of these because most of those users listed left the wiki like a year ago and haven't been on much. Some, like Sprink, quit the wiki so they should be demoted by default. However, I disagree with demoting some like Sunshine, BB, and Webly as Sunshine and Webly appear every so often and BB was just promoted, however, I do agree with the rest listed. Oweguy Wanted a new sig  <font color="DarkGreen">So he changed it  18:17, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I Support the majority of them because 1 I don't know them which means they aren't active and 2 you should really get people who are on here like constantly. Not people who are on here like once or twice a month. Its unfair for people like me who IS extremely active. So Yeah I think all except Webly and BB should be demoted. No Trials,  No Waiting  - The Hunger Games...  18:28, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) The only admins who I agree on the idea of demotion are; Sprinklemis & Spenny. Both of whom have requested a demotion. Asides from those two, the rest did something to get their spot and it should be kept until a time where they no longer want it. <span style="border: 2px dashed PaleTurquoise; border-top-left-radius:2ex; border-bottom-left-radius:2ex; border-top-right-radius:2ex; border-bottom-right-radius:2ex;"><span style="color:#FF9968; background-color:#FDF6A5; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-right-radius:1ex; border-top-right-radius:1ex; font-family:century gothic">♔ ~ Fyre ~ ♕    Living in a Fairy Tale  17:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) As Zac said, the only two I can honestly agree with demoting are Sprink and Spenny, and only because they've asked to be demoted. Otherwise, this won't really work. Ravioli Ravioli   Give me the Formuoli  18:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Above. <font color="#gold">If you're going to lie <font color="#blue">to an all-knowing admin,  <font color="#red">you should at least put some effort in it.  18:13, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) At least, the whole stock mentioned should not be demoted. Plenty are still active in some sense. ALL WE WANNA DO IS  EAT YOUR BRAINS It's nothing personal 18:13, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree on demoting Anonymos, Spenny and Sprink, as they officialy quit (I'm not sure if Gigi quit officialy, but if she did, I agree on her too). I'm indifferent towards Nalyd and Sunshine, as they just aren't that active nowadays, but are still members of the Wiki. I oppose on demoting BB, Kenzen and Webly as they are in hiatus, and will most likely come back. <font color="LightSeaGreen">Manatee12 <font color="MidnightBlue">"And our friend Zeke is really nice, he likes Asian rice." 18:18, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I think this is too many to demote at one time, I disagree with demoting Webly, Sunshine and BB, am indifferent for Nalyd and Gigi, and agree with Spenny, Sprink and Anonymous <font face="Trebuchet MS">-- <span style="color:turquoise; background-color:green; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid black;">Bridgette_dj10 <span style="color:turquoise; background-color:green; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid black;">Talk <span style="color:turquoise; background-color:green; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid black;">Blogs <span style="color:turquoise; background-color:green; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid black;">Contributions <span style="color:turquoise; background-color:green; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid black;">Editcount 18:21, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I do agree our list is too long. I think demoting Spenny, Gigi, and Nonny would be okay. Gigi and Nonny are probably not coming back. Plus, no offense but I totally knew BB would go inactive. I'm still here... and officially coming back in late December. If your undies are tight,  <font color="#D2691E">it's uncomfortable.   If you're a boy and your bra is tight, I'm uncomfortable  18:32, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm pretty sure Spenny, Gigi and Anonymos aren't coming back and Sprink left the wiki so there we go. BB, Kenzen, Nalyd, Sunshine and Webly should be given more time before you guys decide on demoting them, since Webly is here. :P ★  <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:5px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:5px; border:4px ridge #aqua; -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em aqua; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em deeppink; background-color:aqua"> ♥  Mikey    ☮   <font color="DarkViolet"> I'm a pink bunny fairy. :)  ★  20:41, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) BB has been a disappointment, and really should never have been promoted in the first place. When he was promoted, he'd been active for only about 6 weeks following a hiatus of well over a year. When we were considering candidates for adminship, BB swore up and down that he wouldn't disappear again when school started. Less than a month later, school started and he promptly disappeared. I understand that life gets in the way sometimes, but it still feels like he went back on his word. Reddy and I recognized that he might disappear again, so we agreed to promote him on a "probationary" basis. That said, he's been gone (except for two edits in mid-September) for less than 2 months, so I think it's too soon to demote him. Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  04:25, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) While I can see points for the nominated choices I am still a bit neutral towards it. I disagree about Webly since he seems to have comeback. Sunshine and Nayld I haven't heard from recently, but I don't think they are gone, especially Nayld who is still working on TDLosers. But what admin things they have done recently I don't know of, but admins do things that isn't always counted for in the wiki activity so I may not personally know. As for BB and Kenzen, I don't know either. Since Sprink wanted it, then I can see why. I can see Gigi being demoted as well, since she doesn't appear to be on here. I admit I haven't been active too much recently but I am trying to pick up and continue, and think maybe we should give the others a bit of a window. Maybe leave a message on their talkpage if they are still lurking on it to see their opinions. Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt. Sold my soul, and yeah the truth hurts.   05:30, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Kenzen hasn't been gone very long. He's the only one I'm neutral on for this issue. I wish he'd pop in just to say Hi or something. Jay JLOM <font color="Red">Things turn out for the best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out - John Wooden 07:05, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) You guys promoted BB months ago, knowing he'd be leaving for college a few weeks later. I hardly know Gigi and hardly remember Sunshine. I saw Kenzen in chat a couple weeks ago, Nalyd was one of the original people and I also saw Webly a bit. Demote Sprink, Gigi and Sunshine. IDK about Bb. <font face="Trebuchet MS">-- Webkinz Mania  Talk  Blogs  Contributions  Editcount  14:56, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) I'm really neutral on this matter. Okay, so I'm neutral on the whole Bb thing only because he was just promoted awhile back (with swears he would stay as active as possible). I'm also pretty neutral on Kenzen since he hasn't really been active, but has had some appearances on chat awhile ago. I'm not totally pro-demotion of Sprink and Gigi, but I wouldn't mind if they were demoted (only because they're inactive and Sprink told us we could demote him). I think we should keep Nalyd, Sunshine, and Webly. Obviously, Sunshine and Webly are becoming more active and I've seen them more recently. Although Nalyd isn't totally active here, he's one of the originals we need to keep around as admin. He's also active on wiki. If we ever do need him, all we have to do is contact him. Overall, I really think this list was somewhat random for demotions (well, not all of them). Bb and Kenzen should be kept around a little longer (only because Kenzen has been here awhile back and Bb was just promoted [even though, if we knew this was going to happen, he wouldn't have been promoted]). Gigi and Sprink are inactive and Sprink said it was okay to demote him. Those are the ones that were good ideas to demote. Why Nalyd, Sunshine, and Webly are on this list (as Webly had just announced his return, Nalyd can come back whenever we need him, and Sunshine is becoming more active once more) is anyone's guess. So, yeah...<font face="Arial">-- <span style="color:mediumvioletred; background-color:black; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid white;">Love is not science,  it's the ability <span style="color:lightpink; background-color:black; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid white;">to connect very  well with another.  20:18, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Am I to understand that any admin who goes on a hiatus of more than a few weeks (or perhaps even less!) is to be demoted, presumably with no repromotion upon their return? Sunshine has been gone for less than three weeks, and she's a candidate for demotion? Seriously? The reason why we typically strive to have 6-8 active admins at any given time is precisely to provide coverage when some are away. I don't believe that Kenzen, Nalyd, Sprink, Sunshine or Webly have been gone long enough to warrant demotion, unless they no longer wish to be admins or no longer care whether they are admins. If it's true that Sprink has asked to be demoted, then demoting him doesn't require a vote, so why hasn't it already been handled? Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  05:39, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose demoting BB, Nalyd, Sunshine or Webly from your list of candidates for demotion. The last 3 have been around, and BB was only just promoted. Jay JLOM <font color="Red">Things turn out for the best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out - John Wooden 07:08, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I would feel better about this if the "we" behind this proposal would identify themselves.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, in case anyone here has ulterior motives, making any or all of the proposed demotions does NOT necessarily mean that we would be appointing any new admins anytime soon. We currently have enough active admins. The main reason we don't like for the list to get too long is because we want admins who will actually administrate, as opposed to those who mainly just want the title.

I will make my recommendations on specific individuals in the sections above. I will say here that it has never been our policy to routinely demote admins after only a few months of inactivity if they previously had good activity levels. After all, life does get in the way sometimes. That's why we don't have just one or two admins. Furthermore, some of the "inactive" admins do monitor their talk pages and respond to messages. Admins don't necessarily have to be highly active editors, they just have to be available when needed.

As for admins or b-crats requesting to be demoted, they have the power to demote themselves without assistance from anyone.

One last thing: at the risk of sounding mean, the fact that the list of current and "demoteable" admins originally included two (Nonny and Spenny) who were actually demoted three months ago doesn't fill me with confidence that the pro-demotion faction has really thought this through. Gideoncrawle I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  03:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "we" was basically everyone on chat at the time (I recall Nduke, Toad, CK, Jake, Jax and Fanny, but there were more definitely). Instead of just leaving it to about 20% of the wiki's population, we decided that I make a forum instead so that anyone could access it and vote.

And I beg to differ. If we go through with all of these demotions, or even some, we'll definitely need to promote more users because we'll probably have only two or three active admins. We're thinking of maybe five promotions.

I beg to differ on that also. I believe admins do have to be highly active. If we're just keeping them because they occasionally visit their talk page, honestly what's the point? I feel that an active user is more important than insctive admin. If an admin is inactive for let's say a year - what makes you think they'll be on when they're needed for something drastic? And if they really can demote themselves when asked to be - why haven't they already done so?

I also don't really appreciate the fact that you're stating the users who believe in demoting the admins haven't thought it through, just because of one mistake. If you must know, I went through the list of admins on chat one-by-one and asked the users if they would like to demote or keep the user an admin/b-crat and that the majority rules. Almost every demotion we planned was unanimous. It was thought through, thanks. <font color="OrangeRed">Drink cactus juice! <font color="Coral">It'll quench 'ya! 04:01, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering that we have traditionally striven to have 6-8 active admins at any given time, calling for five promotions at once sounds like a power grab. (Maybe it's not, but that's what it looks like.) Only two or or three active admins? I count at least six: myself, Jay, Owe, Reddy, Rhonda and Toad. And if being highly active is so important for an admin, then why aren't you calling for demotion of ALL of the admins who don't meet your standard, whatever that standard may be? Furthermore, has anyone actually asked any of the demotion candidates whether they still want to be admins, or whether they would be content to be demoted? If not, why not? Lastly, keep in mind that, while we welcome input from anyone, the final decision on whom to demote rests with the admins.


 * P.S.: I didn't "state" that you hadn't thought this through based on one mistake, I merely said that the mistake didn't fill me with confidence, since it's just as easy to get these things right. I trust you understand the difference? Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  05:09, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Maybe five is a little too high, but we really shouldn't even be thinking about promotions yet, our main concern is demoting admins. Baby steps, wikia, baby steps. Gideon, you could go ahead and try asking the admins how they would feel about getting demoted, but each of them have a perfectly good reason on getting demoted. For example, Nalyd. Nalyd is on the Total Drama Wiki all the time, he just chooses not to come here. Or Sprink, who's openly stated that he's fine with getting demoted. And Gideon, honestly, what you just said right now is what I have a problem with, and so do many other users. Why should the final decision rest with the admins? Who are they to decide what will happen to our wiki? I love all of them to death, but the community is so much more important. Shouldn't we have a say on what's going to happen to our wiki? Shouldn't we voice our concerns if we feel that something is wrong? Shouldn't we have our opinions heard? Why do the admins decide everything for us, we know exactly what we want and how to get it, so no, I don't think the final decision should rest on the admins.


 * <font color="OrangeRed">Drink cactus juice! <font color="Coral">It'll quench 'ya! 07:57, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Who are the administrators to decide? They're the administrators, and it's their job to administrate. And it is utterly absurd to suggest that non-admins don't get to make their opinions heard or to voice their concerns. This very forum disproves that claim beyond reasonable doubt. Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  16:17, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Whether we do or don't demote these I don't think we need to promote users right away. We will still have seven admins which I think is a good number. Nothing recently till this has seemed to call the attentions of the admins, and I'm not aware of any complaints about how the active admins are doing (though that maybe because people don't want complain about an admin in front of an admin :P). I haven't gotten too many questions on my talkpage either, though maybe it is because I am a newer admin. But for anything that has been going on I think the active admins have been doing a great job. The only admin complaints I hear are usually about inactive admins. If people do have other admin complaints that they think will be solved by more admins please express them so we can handle them and make the wiki better! If not then is there really a reason to want to promote more admins? Not saying that there isn't a great list of users who would make good admins, and people I would want to be admins. Not trying to sound rude about it, but it just seems like we are having this cycle of electing new admins and demoting admins more frequently then we should, and it can cause debates and hurt feelings.  Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt. Sold my soul, and yeah the truth hurts.   05:31, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to start an argument, but when I first arrived here in August 2011, there was a big vote on who the new admins should be, since some were heading off to college and would no longer be active. This seemed to be nearly the same thing this voting cycle, except that Sprink's work was getting in his way instead of college. Everything seemed calm for that one year in the admins, but I wasn't really up on who was and who wasn't one. In my personal opinioin, it's too soon to demote any brand new admins, and the ones that are missing are likely to return during Christmas break. Let's wait until then to decide for sure. My two cents. :) <font color="mediumslateblue">JustLittleOlMe  Lil   Jay JLOM   Jay-Z  Jay-cobb   Jayneneh  Lady Gideon  07:18, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this. I think demoting someone when they are gone for like a year is fine, but demoting someone because they aren't active isn't a good reason. If their really inactive, then it's ok. Crush, <font color="Purple">kill,   destory,  swag.  11:05, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

It makes me a little mad when no one says I've never done anything as an admin anyways. I deleted over 300 pages probably and over 100 pictures at least. I also did a lot of things that failed but I never stopped trying. (including the Wiki Awards, Character Competition, Wiki Newsletter, the failed Read About, my fun random competitions for shows which at one point had the most comments ever, 411). I will be back... -- If your undies are tight, <font color="#D2691E">it's uncomfortable.   If you're a boy and your bra is tight, I'm uncomfortable  14:13, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed I didn't express my opinion on promoting new admins. I say we shouldn't, since the problem here is the high amount of inactive admins, not the low amount of active ones. <font color="LightSeaGreen">Manatee12 <font color="MidnightBlue">"And our friend Zeke is really nice, he likes Asian rice." 14:38, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Manatee. I do think we should promote new admins, though, at least two (maybe not this second, but sometime in the near future). We made a big deal about promoting new admins back in August, and we only promoted three new admins. Seriously? I thought we were going to promote six or something. I also agree with O about how admins should be highly active. The admins that I suggest we demote are Sprink, Gigi, and maybe Nalyd and Sunshine. Bb, Webly, and Kenzen have all been on recently, but they're just busy, so I want them to stay. And Jay, not trying to be rude, but I don't think that they will return on Christmas break. We said that people would return in the summer. Guess what? They didn't. I don't think they were just on vacation, because if they wanted to return, they would.

So, yeah, demote inactive admins, add two or three more active ones, blah blah. Toadgamer80 GRAH-GOOGLY! 16:41, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Toad, three admins last August was more than we originally intended to promote. The original plan was to promote only two, partly because Reddy had just promoted you unilaterally. (You may recall that, while nobody questioned your credentials, there was some grumbling about Reddy not going through the normal process.) The main reason we promoted a third was because BB had broad support, but the admins had serious questions about whether he would remain active. This turned out for the best because the third new admin was Rhonda, who went on to become one of our most active admins when it comes to actually doing adminly things. Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  17:39, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, now I remember that. I didn't remember if it was two or three, but now I remember Jay being promoted as well. I'm pretty sure BB will be back, he's probably just a little busy with college starting and all. Toadgamer80 GRAH-GOOGLY! 17:41, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Toady. At the time, we should demote Gigi, Nalyd and Sprink. As for the rest, we should wait a few months (until Christmas break, perhaps). As for promotions, we have like, 6 active admins? Promoting 2 or 3 more wouldn't be a problem, imo. "The best part is  when we go   to the whale!"  18:19, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thats A Good Idea..... Active Users, Hint Hint. ^^^^ No Trials,  No Waiting  - The Hunger Games...  18:54, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

On this "admin promotion matter", I wouldn't mind two users possibly being promoted if we go through with demotions.<font face="Arial">-- <span style="color:mediumvioletred; background-color:black; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid white;">Love is not science,  it's the ability <span style="color:lightpink; background-color:black; padding:2px; font-size:8pt; border:thin solid white;">to connect very  well with another.  20:22, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Since OHFan asked me to end the voting at 6:00 AM on Monday, it has been done. Support has sixteen votes, neutral has thirteen, and oppose has two. I'm sure someone (probably an admin or OHFan), will make a forum or blog explaining the next step in this. Any votes after this will not be counted. Users are still allowed to comment, but make it in the comment sections. Thanks! ~<font color="Purple">Jake R: <font color="Silver">Welcome...  <font color="Purple">stalkers!  10:09, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that simple. People don't "own" forum pages the way they own blog posts, and OHF isn't an admin, so cutting off the voting isn't necessarily his call. I honestly get the feeling that he's trying to ramrod this for whatever reason. Note also that the proper vote count would be the number of supports/neutrals/opposes for each demotion candidate individually, not the whole slate, so the 16/13/2 count isn't the relevant breakdown. Gideoncrawle  I have a song to sing, O!  Sing me your song, O!  A wandering minstrel, I--  13:15, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to ramrod anything, Gideon. I asked a lot of people how they felt about ending the voting today at 6:00 am, and all of them were fine with it. Every single thing that I've posted and done has been shared with the community beforehand, I have not made any calls on my own nor have I objected to anything anyone has to say. That's the problem with this wiki, the admins just completely make decisions on their own (some, not all), without listening to us first. If you want to extend the date to maybe Wednesday at 7pm, then go for it. But let's face it, the support section is winning and no one else will vote (belive me, I've asked). I'm just trying to save us a little time. This is going to happen, even if you extend the deadline. <font color="OrangeRed">Drink cactus juice! <font color="Coral">It'll quench 'ya! 20:00, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is true. I was on chat basically ALL DAY Saturday and Sunday, and everything OHF asked was to the community. The list of admins to demote was even voted on. We even voted on who to promote, and each and every person that kept coming on. It's not that he's trying to ramrod it at all. We made a decision and we're sticking to it. This goes back to why admins control our wiki...you can't deny our rights as a community. -- o wate u men blo ive?  yes sory i get dem mixed up,  i did perchese ur coluered child  20:18, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I really don't have much to add that OWF and CK haven't already stated, I'm just here to say that I, for one, agree with them, admins can't have total control over the wiki. For sale:   baby shoes,   never worn.  20:38, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

You guys also have to take into consideration that not all "Support" votes agree on demoting all of them. Just saying. <font color="LightSeaGreen">Manatee12 <font color="MidnightBlue">"And our friend Zeke is really nice, he likes Asian rice." 20:21, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

We're not just vegetables in a kitchen that the admins own. OHF asked every individual person and in a very professional way, might I add. We went with every decision made on chat, we didn't just have a 2-way PM conversation about this like you appear to think we did. (in my opinion) -- o wate u men blo ive?  yes sory i get dem mixed up,  i did perchese ur coluered child  20:23, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

We do not control the users and our team isn't slow (if you contact the right admin) but some of you guys are the ones who supported us initially. I believe that the admin staff is very big and in need of clean up. We just need possibly one more addition. We have the actives on our staff: Rhonda, Gideon, Jay, Toad, and Reddy. Then, we have me who is not technically back but not technically gone. I'm just here for admin stuff and blogs and a small bit of chatting but no stories at the moment. We also have Shane who has a busy schedule which is understandable and Owe who hasn't really done anything much "adminly". Then, we have BB who was promoted though *cough*Bruno, had my full support for the other admin spot*cough*. And finally we have the ones that I believe should be demoted, Sprink (he'll be re-elected automatically if he comes back I would think), Kenzen (he'd be mad if he found out we did this when he was "gone" but he's never "here" :/), Gigi (finished her only story a while ago and I don't think is coming back) and Sunshine (great friend but not really a help). Nalyd is almost like the founder of the website. I think it'd be okay to keep him. Overall, I think you guys are ranting for good reasons but don't take it out on the whole admin squad. You act like we're terrible admins sometimes when a lot of us do a lot for the wiki. Also, decisions regarding admins need to be in blogs not in chat because it's not official. After this, I have some ideas for the wiki but I think we should only deal with one proposal at a time. Just my two cents on the subject. -- If your undies are tight, <font color="#D2691E">it's uncomfortable.   If you're a boy and your bra is tight, I'm uncomfortable  23:51, October 22, 2012 (UTC)