Two days ago you approved my adoption for the Lux Series wiki. I noticed this on the adoption requests page: "Existing admins may be removed only if they have been inactive for more than one year." The founder has been inactive for 6 years, since 2014, but she still has administrative rights. I was wondering If one had to request it or it is something done entirely by your discretion? If the former, I would like to make the request, if not that's ok. Thank you.
https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Adoption:The_scrambled_states_of_america_Wikia_(5) So in October I could make another adoption request for the scrambled states of America. I always wanted to make a community by becoming an admin. It's been 90 days since I was an admin on Froggy Books Wiki. I have made over 512+ edits on this wiki I have been adding new pages to this wiki and I was editing the namespace for at least 60 days. I'm not blocked on any wiki and I'm friendly user. Soon 2 weeks I can make an adoption request. You wish you can close the scrambled states of America wikia so I don't have to be an admin on this wiki. What about the audience of the wiki there are some users on this wiki and if this wiki gets closed then users can't go there anymore. If I permanently loose adoption then fine I'll just leave the wiki the way it was. Like vandals vandalize this wiki, the background is the same nothing in this wiki changes and admins won't be on this wiki to change the background and block the vandals. Nothing is this wiki changes the wiki is the same since 2015
Deleting a thread for what you consider to be inactivity is never a good idea — particularly if you're trying to adopt a wiki. A staff member will not even think to look at deleted edits. It's not reasonable to destroy records of change of leadership requests, because you need to be able to point out, maybe a year or two from now, that you went through the necessary steps to become an admin.
By the time I had reviewed Adoption:Eminem Wiki (3), you had not reached out to this person, and they were definitely still considered to be active by normal adoption guidelines. You then deleted it with an obscene note because you apparently got impatient, on a date where they still would have been considered active by staff.
That revision note, along with the odd act of deletion itself, makes me believe you're not quite cut out to adopt a wiki at this time.
All you had to do was reach out to a person and just ... let it be. Instead, you have an odd propensity to delete communication with other users, which goes contrary to the community-building spirit that's required by adoption rules. Also, please try to remember that COVID-19 is upending all our lives. Some extra patience would not go amiss.
So I'm not inclined to approve future requests at this time. I would strongly urge you to try to show some effort at community building. If you can demonstrate that that, then you can re-apply in a month's time.
You know what? I'm not even gonna bother trying to adopt the wiki again, since you fail to realize that the other person is inactive and his last edit was two weeks before I even joined the wiki, and I joined almost a month ago.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make to you. Two weeks without an edit is not inactivity, according to our guidelines. At the time you made your first request, you should have already had some communication going with them, because our adoption rules explicitly required it. And at the time you pulled down that communication, they still weren't inactive, Admin need to demonstrate that they're patient and that they're willing to give people time to respond.
As for building future communication, people who have gone quiet on a wiki haven't necessarily stopped using Fandom. A message on their wall will alert them to activity on this wiki, and it may well bring them back. If it doesn't, at least you can say that you tried.
You declined the request due to inactivity, saying that you don't want me to sink a lot of time into an inactive wiki. But just so you know, this is a labor of love for me (I'm sure you hear that a lot), and I'm going to keep working on it regardless. If this prompts you to shut down the wiki, I hope you'll let me retrieve the pages first! I'll host it myself if necessary.
Yes, KB is on hiatus, and it's "indefinite" in the strict sense of not having a preset end date. But Mary has promised that she's going to finish the comic, which has a chapter and a fraction to go before its long-planned finish.
I guess I don't understand why you ever turn down an adoption request for a wiki that has no active admin. I'm an adult (I'm 71 years old) and I really don't need you to concern yourself with how I spend my time. (That's especially the case right now when I can't go out anyway!) The amount of storage this wiki uses is minimal, and since it's inactive it isn't using much of your Internet connectivity either.
I just wanted to say thank you for the response to the Beer Wiki adoption request. I initially made the request to call attention to the initial problem. Yes, it has been reported to SOAP, thanks to your suggestion. Yes, I have been editing on the Beer wiki since that application was made. I will be reapplying soon within the next couple months properly (it's just I came here first because I didn't know about the SOAP).
Just to clear something up; I did accept that ban on the DC wiki. I stated that I accepted, then I simply listed off my 2 cents' worth of what I meant by my actions as well as what I believe should have been done (because banning people without any warnings or explanations why, leaves people like me having to track down the answers). Anyways, I have had no 'trouble' with Tupka217 since - you may even ask them yourself if you're having a hard time believing me. I do realize this may come off as shrewd and blunt, but no; the ban has nothing to do with the application. I was merely being truthful, showing you that I have had some somewhat rough patches in my history on the wiki. That is all. I do not care to be dragged back into that topic, and would like to leave it in the past.
To wrap it up, SOAP has been contacted already. I'm going to do things more properly as suggested. Just letting you know, I have read the response to the application, and I will follow the suggestions provided accordingly.
So, other than the "wait 90 days before filing another request" thing, is there anything I need to include in my next request the next time I file one or did I get everything in my 3rd request? I don't want to end up like the guy who filed 5 adoption requests to adopt the Scrambled States of America Wiki and potentially lose my eligibility to adopt a wiki. I want to get things right the next time I file a request and not have to waste any more of your time and mine.
All that's required is that you be fully compliant with our adoption guidelines, both when you make your application and at the time of review.
I wouldn't take the example of the Scrambled States wiki as something to worry about. That case is massively atypical.
The adoption process is really very simple. It revolves around a series of binary questions, all of which are laid out in our guidelines. As long as you're doing everything there, and as long as the wiki isn't completely dead, you'll be fine.
I did a deeper clean of things which should have removed offensive language, even when in revision notes and past revisions themselves. Thanks very much for aggressively getting the attention of several different admin on this matter, and in taking the steps you could on the individual pages — particularly on a weekend!