User talk:Agent Isai

I am actually planning on gaining new admins. I'm going to put a notice and let people know that if you're an admin, they have until the 11th to claim their adminship or they will be demoted and that's when hiring starts. As for the blacklist, it's there because there are users that would not be good admins or has had done things that may cause drama. It's their for the good of the wiki. Also, All pictures and links are unedited so money12123's claim of pictures and links being invalid is false.

> As for the blacklist, it's there because there are users that would not be good admins or has had done things that may cause drama.

Then implement a requirement that administrators must not be vandals, trolls, disruptive, etc.

That's basically what the blacklist is. It also states that you do have a chance to redeem yourself and be removed from the black list.

It would save you an awful lot of space to simply have the requirements as suggested and not have a public pillory for individuals you don't like. A lot of them have been justly blocked and would have no ability to request adminship anyway, others are not members or haven't been for a long time/never will be, or are on the list for incredibly petty reasons. No wiki with responsible management does it this way for a number of reasons.

Also, two things about the thing about pictures and links:

1. I am not saying the pictures are edited, just that they could be. Doesn't matter if you say they aren't, why should I trust a random person on the Internet? I don't mean that as an insult, I just mean that it's a possibility.
2. I didn't say the links were unreliable. I said that I thought plainlinks were unnecessary, or at least, most of the time. There's no reason you can't just leave a link how it is. We don't need every link to be a plainlink.

So that's what you meant by links? Should have said that instead. Also, the blacklist isn't going away any time soon. It's still there for a reason. Other admins are also editing it.

Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes reasons aren't very good. That seems to be the case here. But I won't be the one to force the issue.

@Pacsonic9000: Please read w:proof by assertion and w:appeal to popularity, along with what Raidarr said.

The issue with this wiki is that it's more of a "dictatorship" more than anything. You gave sanctions to a user who filed a report regarding the wiki on the Stewards' Noticeboard because of your incompetence in handling the wiki. This wiki is an unorganized mess with generally no codified policies whatsoever except for the often misinterpreted, and frankly poorly writen, Reception Wiki starter-pack rules.

I could become an admin. Speaking of which, there is still something about Meta Miraheze related to me that has yet to be done, I need to still be unblocked from there. On the topic of that, when are the inactive admins going to be demoted.

Look, I don't mean to be overly negative and all, but I don't really think you're cut out to be an admin or even a mod, considering your history of... well, you all know what I mean.

Heck, I even remember you making an RfC to make you an admin on Qualitipedia Meta (twice, no less), and it failed both times for obvious reasons.

In addition, I remember on my Fandom days, I made a post (I was widely semi-infamous for milking polls on ESB, obviously) about me thinking I should become admin and even made an RFC about it once (https://spongebob.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000342750 and https://spongebob.fandom.com/wiki/ESB:Requests_for_adminship/MarioBobfan).

And it seems to me that you were blocked from that wiki for being disruptive, just like most other wikis you've been on.

I was not blocked from Fandom, they disabled my account because I was 14 and the fact that you have to be 16 or older to create an account in California and many other places. This happened thirteen months ago.

I love my state /s

@Collei What does "state /s" mean?

/s stands for sarcasm. I am sarcastically saying that I love my state, California.

Oh, okay, gotcha.

I remember that, and the reason of why I made a second one because I had made a "mistake".

No, what you did was make the same mistake twice.

I'm demoting the inactive admins today as I type this.

You forgot to demote a couple of them, even though you removed them all from the contact section.

Hello?

That middle part is why you will get neither of the first two things you wrote.

Are we not kind of getting off topic here?

I don't think that Stewards know how to proceed here in my opinion.

Not much to proceed on until there is Steward input or Pacsonic makes any changes.