Forum:Removal of User Rights from StarCrossedWonderland

This forum has been created to discuss and come to a decision regarding the user rights of 's founder StarCrossedWonderland.

Inactivity
StarCrossedWonderland has been inactive for more than two months and as such, the wiki is left with only one administrator and no active bureaucrats.

New Administrator/Bureaucrat
Given the attention the wiki has been receiving, as well as the growing need for administrator action due to vandalism, changes in the interface and the like, I propose that Glass Heart be given administrator and bureaucrat rights. She is the most active user on the wiki, she is well versed in the series and has experience with administrator tools from other wikis. As such, I believe she is the best candidate for the position.

Voting rules
If you support the removal of StarCrossedWonderland's user rights, use the   template in the Support section.

If you oppose the removal of StarCrossedWonderland's user rights, use the   template in the Oppose section.

If you wish to leave a comment and/or begin a discussion on this issue, leave your comment in the Comments section. Please do not leave any comments next to your vote. All opinions on this matter should be in the Comments section.

Please follow up your vote and/or comment by leaving your signature by typing four tildes (~).

Support the removal of StarCrossedWonderland's user rights

 * 1) Remchu 09:20,12/27/2012
 * 2)  15:10, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Omega natsu2 18:09, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  15:10, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Omega natsu2 18:09, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Unfortunately, StarCrossedWonderland has not contributed much to the wiki in recent times. Even as the series aired, manga was released and more and more information became available and work needed to be done, she hasn't done any. The wiki isn't benefiting from her inactivity right now and as such, I support removing her rights.

Don't get me wrong. I respect what she did do for the wiki and I'm all for creating a section to denote her as a former administrator, but since she is inactive, she has no reason to keep her user rights.

Well this seems a little pointless...

Firstly, this wiki doesn't need to have another user with a bureaucrat flag because it never needed one. The only thing a bureaucrat flag is needed for is for giving out sysop and rollback flags (well, and revoking them). Besides that it has absolutely no purpose. One is all we need.

I'm fully aware StarCrossedWonderland has been inactive. Will her rights be removed? Of course NOT. If her assistance is required then I can just easily poke her via email.

As for a "new admin" I don't really see any reasons why we should have a new sysop, much less bureaucrat. As what other sysops told me, "If you see something that needs cleaning up, then go ahead and clean it up. If you think you can fix any of the templates, then fix it, it's not protected. If you see something that needs deleting, then tag it for deletion. If there's vandalism then just simply revert and report." There's not a 24 hour activity going and there hasn't been tons of vandalism, so what exactly will having a new sysop solve?

Oh and FYI, I'm not dead. I may have been busy IRL but if there's anything that only sysops has accesses to all you have to do is just pinged me on my talk page and I'll be there.--White Flash (Contact) 20:04, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you not reading specific notes written above?


 * As Ultraprime2 said, StarCrossedWonderland is inactive and has not contributed much to the wiki. Furthermore, she has violated policies in the past, despite being in the administration league here. I have emailed her on a few occasions. She has not responded to them let alone do anything on the wiki that I have requested. She may be busy in real life but that does not mean she can go for months without contributing whatsoever and still be considered an active user here. So, tell me, why should we let a user who has done little overall compared to everyone else on this wiki still remain K Project Wiki's highest form of authority? Simply because she founded this wiki? That's not enough reason. If anything is pointless, it is having to let her remain possessive of her rights in these times.


 * And I believe a new administrator would be very helpful, whoever it is to be, should it be Remnant13 or even myself. StarCrossedWonderland is practically no longer an administrator/bureaucrat here and you, White Flash, has shown that you are not capable of being the only administrator here. You delete anything that has been tagged within the previous 24 hours despite the fact that there are several dozens that need to be deleted here. You have blocked users for extensive amounts of time for petty vandalism and in one case, for doing actual contributing while unfortunately doing it through the Visual Editor. I admit, you do handle administrative work, yet that is practically all you are doing here and you do acknowledge the fact that users who do not have such powers very regularly are forced to ask you to handle things for them. Furthermore, should it be that you are busy in real life, that only adds to the fact that it would be a very good idea to have another administrator who is regularly active.


 * Guess I should answer your questions and clear up a few things in your post:
 * "she has violated policies in the past" I haven't seen any of her contributions that show violations of any policies, quit making a baseless accusation.
 * "You have blocked users for extensive amounts of time for petty vandalism"" Wow just sue me if I'm trying to help prevent vandalism >_>
 * "So, tell me, why should we let a user who has done little overall compared to everyone else on this wiki still remain K Project Wiki's highest form of authority?"" Star can't have the "highest form of authority" if she's inactive...duh :/
 * "I have emailed her on a few occasions. She has not responded to them let alone do anything on the wiki that I have requested" That's funny, I've sent her emails a few times and she responded to them.
 * "you are not capable of being the only administrator here" I'm not capable of handling 7 users? Mind you are the only active ones?
 * This is overkill. I'm not sure why you are so persisted on having sysop. It's not going to solve anything. Perhaps if there's 50+ active users here then I'll reconsider about having another sysop.--White Flash (Contact) 23:21, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as StarCrossedWonderland retains her sysop and bureaucrat rights then she has the most access to everything on the wiki, ergo, she is essentially the highest authority. And frankly, she only seems to ever respond to you. From what's obvious on the wiki, a few other users including myself have messaged her through talk page on different occasions in the past, and she has ignored most of them. She did respond to this, however, so hopefully that can show she has violated policies. I wouldn't tell an administrator something like that if they didn't actually do it. Also, if I found you to be a capable enough to handle everything alone, then I wouldn't bring it up now would I?


 * And what's overkill is blocking others for months on one small attempt at vandalism. I am not trying to say that a block wasn't necessary but unless they did something such removing all content from articles or inserting false information, I would say that's extreme.


 * Back to the main topic. I would still say that SCW's rights should be removed. Reasons stated above. And apparently, no opposition from the voting either.