Forum:Founder inactive, How to make more admins

Founder in the wikia is inactive, and no longer take care of the wikia.

how can i add new admins? I am just a sysop.


 * If the community of the Wiki accepts you to gain the rights, you can request Bureaucrat rights on the Wiki. Just create a forum post and let everyone discuss it. -- Manaphy 12342  14:01, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then add a request here. 14:11, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an object lesson in wiki management that so many new Wikians forget. When you start or take over a wiki, appoint another bureaucrat.


 * Don't make every admin a bureaucrat, because then your wiki could slide into civil war. Each bureaucrat could appoint their own admin, and if you had a lot of admin squabbling with each other, the wiki would no longer be a very fun place.


 * But do appoint one person as a backup bureaucrat.


 * You never know what might happen in your life. You could get a new job or lose an old one. You could get kicked out of school and lose cheap internet. You could get married or divorced. Really anything could happen. If you've got someone in reserve, they can at least appoint new leadership if you can't get back in the saddle. A good choice of a backup is someone knowledgeable about Wikia, but not that interested in your subject matter. That way, they can make an objective assessment of who seems to be good for the wiki and promote a single new bureaucrat from within the enthusiastic user base of your wiki. I'm sure that many of the people who post regularly to Community Central forums would agree to act as an "emergency bureaucrat" — thereby keeping your wiki from falling into disuse just because you can't be there for a few months. 21:09: Tue 25 Sep 2012
 * Funny czechout, because there really is no need for adding another bureaucrat.
 * Because despite what happens, there always is the adopting a wiki process which makes others able to become bureaucrat even after the wiki got deserted years earlier.
 * I have done it myself too for several wikis. So no... There is no need for another bureaucrat.


 * Having another bureaucrat would be more beneficial to the community, as they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of readopting. The adoption process gets complicated when there are active users and admins.


 * Exactly. w:c:downtonabbey is in utter chaos right now, during the broadcast of the series, largely because two users who generally oppose each other are fighting it out at Forum:AR:Adoption request for Downton Abbey Wiki and w:c:downtonabbey:Forum:Adminship.  This squabble wouldn't be happening if another bureaucrat would have been appointed at the start.  And there are many cases where people are just ready to pounce if you're gone for one day over the 60 required by the adoption process.  Heck, sometimes people don't even wait 60 to start the process, as happened with the ridiculous theft inherent in Forum:AR:Adoption request for Bravest Warriors Wiki.


 * Don't get me wrong, WikiPim. It's good that there's an adoption process.  I've adopted a wiki myself through it.  But it's the "lost and found room" of Wikia.  It's simply easier never to lose your item at all. I'm of the opinion that when squabbles over "ownership" can be avoided, they should be avoided.  All it takes is for the backup bureaucrat to make one edit every 60 days and the case for adoption vanishes.  Appointing a backup bureaucrat increases the chances that your wiki — and maybe more significantly, your url — won't be given to someone else just because you can't be connected to the internet for a few months.


 * If you don't care whether your wiki goes to someone you don't know, then, yeah, leave it up to the adoption process. But if you want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to keep your wiki going, choose your own staff. Refusing to appoint at least one other bureaucrat is simply irresponsible, and it shows that you think of your wiki as a vanity project.   18:36: Thu 27 Sep 2012 18:36, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a tad extreme. Not appointing other crats doesn't at all make it about vanity. I have seen cases like that, but it might just be that someone's paranoid and doesn't know who to trust that deeply. Some founders/crats can appoint many SysOps and allow a lot of other people to provide a great deal of input and remain diplomatic, receptive and inclusionist, in spite of not dishing out the crat powers. +Yc 07:52, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Another note for Czech: regarding your comment about the Bravest Warriors wiki and it being a ridiculous theft, looked into it a bit. Check out w:c:BravestWarriors:Special:Log/rights. The founder (crat) hadn't been on since July 12. The application was made Sept 8. At the time, Wotter's last edit was Sept 4. Seph wanted other admins. Albeit I understand how you view it, as we couldn't necessarily know at the time how those bureaucratic powers might be used. Turns out (looking at the rights log) seph also promoted sky monster to crat position, seems like a failsafe. If we look at w:c:BravestWarriors:User_blog:True_Sephiroth/In_need_of_new_adminship/Bureaucrat, in the 5 replies, Wotter on the 17th said "I agree that you be the new "founder"/bereaucrat of this wiki". Merrystar promoted Seph to crat on the 18th so I think we can assume she read that comment by the SysOp and that endorsement's probably what swayed the decision. +Yc 09:32, September 28, 2012 (UTC)