Adoption:Naruto Fanon-Central

Adoption requests →

Username: Boredfan1

Wikia URL: http://narutofanon-central.wikia.com/wiki/Naruto-Fanon_Central_Wiki

Current edit count: 4,344

How long I have edited there: 4 days

Last admin to edit and when: Boredfan1, date: 2/28/2014

Other information: All the admins quit and moved to a more popular Naruto fanon wiki called Naruto Fanon because of how low our activity has become however, I do not like their roleplaying style and refused to move with them. That being said, I do have my own Naruto wiki but in order to make it take off, I would need to transfer a ton of stuff that would take weeks, even months so it would be easier to keep going with this one then working on my own.


 * You are already have admin and bureaucrat rights, so an adoption isn't necessary. Kamikaze839  02:57, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

The Application
I don't know whether or not I can edit the other page so I will just say what I need to here. Like I said on the application for the adoption, all the other admins, including the founder has moved away to a larger wiki and the likelyhood that they will return is very small. Several have already forgotten about the wiki or simply choose to ignore it, believing it not to be worth checking. While as a bureacrat I can easily remove the adminship of the non-bureacrats, I ask for this adoption because I do not believe someone who abandoned their wiki should be allowed to hold such high power as founder since they obviously no longer care about it.=Lord of the bored, User:Boredfan1= 09:50, March 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * The status of "Founder" is non-transferable, and Staff does not remove bureaucrat from users except for violations of TOU, and outcry of the local community. You have all the Rights and Power you need to be highly effective for your wiki and its community. Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply (them pages). --Love Robin (talk) 11:42, March 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit
 * Also have to add that a review of the Founder's last 100 edits and when they were done does not fit "Inactivity". Maybe there was a dry spell in there somewhere older than I bothered to look, but Wikia considers "Inactive" to be more than 60 days. --Love Robin (talk) 12:13, March 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Editing doesn't include activity on a person's wall or talk page correct? Because if it doesn't then the last time he actually edited was the 15th of last month and while yes, that is not 60 days, from this point on all he is going to be doing is trying to convince me via my wall to join him on the other wiki until he eventually gives up, if that ever happens which is doubtful as hes Texas stubborn.....In any case, I don't care about the founder title, if hes inactive for 60 days with the exception of say wall activity, would it possible to simply remove his founder title? I rather there be no founder than a founder who doesn't care about the wiki anymore.=Lord of the bored, User:Boredfan1= 05:43, March 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it does not work that way. "Founder" is the courtesy label given to the person who opened the wiki. That remains true no matter what happens afterward. All across Wikia there are Founders who have *never* edited once on their wikis, to less than 5 edits, to more than 5 years inactive, to accounts globally disabled. It does not change the fact that a Founder is a Founder is a Founder.


 * So unless there is an accusation of a TOU violation you wish to levy, with supportive proof, the Label and Rights of the Founder remains.


 * At any rate, the Adoption process is not the venue for your concerns. It is for the adopting of a wiki in which the administration is completely inactive. That is not the case as the administration is still considered Active, and *you* avow to remaining so, which means the wiki has an active admin and bureaucrat.


 * And to answer your question, editing does include Walls and Talks, *however* for the purpose of the Adoption process, "consistency in editing" means more Content than Talks.


 * When Staff gets to it, the request will be closed. --Love Robin (talk) 06:00, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Content moved here from the adoption talk page. That namespace is quite redundant and shouldn't really be used ever. Thisismyrofl (talk) 06:05, March 4, 2014 (UTC)