Forums: Index The Impala Desynoping Inactive admins
Can I get your vote on whether or not Inactive admins should be demoted. Dominic1743 (talk) 12:01, December 11, 2019 (UTC)

Support - a positive vote.
Oppose - a negative vote.
Neutral - a neutral vote.
Comment/Observation/Note - a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to close voting and make a decision on a specified date.
{Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat.


  • Support - I support the Desynoping of Inactive admins. Dominic1743 (talk) 12:07, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I support this given that there is evidence and cause to believe that these admins are unlikely to become active on the wiki again. Dtol (talk) 18:31, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If they've been inactive for quite some time, then probably. As long as there's still active admins to run the site of course. KillRoy231 (talk) 18:56, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree, especially if they have been inactive for a long time.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:30, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed, however some like TD5 and FTW shouldn't be desynoped. SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:35, December 15, 2019 (UTC)SeraphLucifer
  • Support- If they stopped contributing it makes no sense for them to remain Admin. Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 11:00, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed. However, they should be inactive for a substantial amount of time like six or more months without any kind of edits.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 12:26, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I completely agree. Jack3869 (talk) 03:04, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - Definitely. A couple have been away for months at a time due to various things but still return like FTWinchester and SeraphLucifer I believe.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 18:00, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm glad this is happening and for those who don't know I'll list the users eligible for demotion.... User:RaghavD, User:MisterRandom2, User:Kyle_Nin, User:Hallichester, User:Thesilentpoethosea, User:Healingtears14, and User:Umairnadeem. Some have even been inactive for over ten years. @Twilight: To be clear you aren't suggesting that Caleb be demoted too? He's been inactive for eight months, but has a good history of coming when he's needed. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:32, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hell, I've been on here for a number of years and I don't think I've ever even heard of most if not all of those people. But Caleb's the one with ultimate power over the Wiki right??? I don't really know if we'd even have the power to do that to him even if we wanted to.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 18:35, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Only staff can remove bureaucrat status or the bureaucrat. Could this also be a policy. Dominic1743 (talk) 19:06, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't want to demote Caleb or have Fandom do it, I was only pointing out that Caleb should be exempt and was trying to clarify that TW5 wasn't wanting Caleb added to the list. Caleb has useful skills despite his inactivity and having him as a secondary Bureaucrat is useful when I'm unable to be impartial or for a second opinion. Plus he's a great debater, good at coding, and is more level-headed than myself. I would say that we need to keep Caleb as a B-Crat/Admin because this recent inactivity is the exception and not the norm for him. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:17, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment: Definite agreement with that.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:50, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment: I think inactivity for a year+ at minimum would be reasonable. As less as six months (or even eighth months in the case of Caleb) as TD5 suggests seems too short for deeming an Admin as inactive and quite frankly sounds a bit extreme. 06:51, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
        • Exactly. It would have to be for a substantial period of time for them to qualify, people who clearly have no intention of returning due to how long they've been gone, not people who due to whatever is going on in their lives can only make sporadic appearances these days.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 07:29, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
        • It still doesn't change anything from our recent discussion here, all of the mentioned admins have two+ years of inactivity and it was agreed that Caleb wouldn't be demoted. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:20, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
          • I agree with you on the ones you've outlined Zane. I've been on this site for years and I don't think I've even heard of them before.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:04, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
          • CommentOut of 5 Bureaucrats only 2 are active will the other 3 be demoted as well. Dominic1743 (talk) 16:20, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment: Yes, but I'll have to contact Fandom for those users. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:29, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment: I don’t think we can demote Caleb as he is Wikia Staff I believe. And I did say six (plus) months of inactivity should warrant a demotion. That was just my opinion on a time frame. I thought it would be have been said that one year or more as a starting date would be too long [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 18:35, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment: Setting a time frame as less as six months to determine inactive Admins is too short for the very reason WarGrowlmon18 pointed out  "people who due to whatever is going on in their lives can only make sporadic appearances these days". In fairness, desnoyping should only be considered for Admins as well as B-Crats who have been inactive for over a long peroid of time (e.g. roughly a year), not a short peroid(six months or more). We need to establish a time frame that is long enough in order to avoid prematurely desynoping Admins who may have been only temporarly inactive during those "months" which is a possiblity as evidenced by Caleb's multple absences. It doesn't hurt the wiki to have inactive Admins/B-Crats, so we shouldn't be so quick to demote them due to inactivity within less than a year. 02:19, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment: If you read the discussion then you would see that was already addressed and a moot point given the lengths of some absences. One edited in 2017, but the others vary between 5-12 years of inactivity. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:29, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
          • Comment: I am aware how long they have been absent and I have no objection to them being desynopped, but I think you misunderstood my point. To clarify, I was referring suspefically to a time frame for desynopping Admins/B-Crats who may become inactive in the future which I assumed was a topic also being discussed based off of what was said by TD5 and WarGrowlman18 above ("However, they should be inactive for a substantial amount of time like six or more months without any kind of edits"; "A couple have been away for months at a time due to various things but still return like FTWinchester and SeraphLucifer I believe") as well as their responses to my first comment. 03:39, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (conditional) - I agree with the above suggestions that we should allow for a year of inactivity before removing them. I must admit I was gone for a long time here because real-life issues caught up to me, and sometimes, it is just impossible to sign in every week or so. I think a year is more definitive than 6 months, since we currently have enough active admins to address issues immediately (Had it been similar to 2014-2016 when there were very few active admins, I would have agreed to a shorter time frame to allow new admins to be promoted in their stead). Caleb must be granted extra room because he has a very good understanding of all the rules and how the wiki works in general (not just this particular wiki). FTWinchester (talk) 17:58, December 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • Decision: Per the consensus, all Admin and Bureaucrat's that have been inactive for a year will be demoted. While there were some minor missteps, the debate over 6 months or a year, it was generally agreed that a year would be best. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:54, December 27, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.