Forum:Bring back fanon "admins"

Forums: War Room → Bring back fanon "admins"

Note: This thread has been unedited for 3672 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Fanon administrators will not be brought back. The Fanonbender usergroup will look after the fanon update pages as well.
Please do not edit this discussion.

As I understand, this wiki removed the fanon administrators because extra admin rights were not required to fulfill their tasks. Still, we have plenty of fanon pages that are below our wiki's standards, and many more that are simply plopped into a userspace without a very clear explanation as to how to improve it. We have tons of fanons with terrible grammar, hideous punctuation, and various other errors.

This is all a result of not having a group of people dedicated solely to maintaining the fanon portal. No, one does not need any special wiki rights to do this, but it would help immensely to have users who could be considered the "leaders" and the authorities, even if they didn't have official admin rights. Such a group could:

• Dedicate their editing to the fanon space. We have plenty of spelling/grammar errors that need attention.
• Fix fanon infoboxes .
• Be available to answer questions from new/aspiring fanon authors.
• Be the final authority on matters regarding the fanon portal.
• Take over the operation of the fanon portal's main page.
• Guide struggling others by offering detailed and helpful advice rather than carelessly moving/renaming fanon articles. This would best be done by people who are dedicated to the fanon portal, users who genuinely care.

There is no group of people that struggling authors can look to at this moment. With fanon administrators, there would be. When I first started out, I asked the fanon admins question after question, and found their responses very useful.

Please, it doesn't hurt anyone to have unofficial fanon admins. Even if you don't think we need them (which we do), there is no reason to oppose. They would merely serve as guides and great contributors to the portal. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 00:55, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am kind of neutral on this. There are some things that are good about this, but also the Fanonbenders group also works for this job. So I shall see other's opinions. HenryJh 98 (Blogs • ATSW • FFF) 00:56, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Per Henry. I know that the FAs can move files and other things, but the Fanonbenders usergroup does this as well. --Humble (Talk • HOA) 00:58, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Fanonbenders aren't an authority, and to be honest, I've never seen the group as a whole work to do anything. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 00:59, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Fanonbending is a great way to separate good fanons from the bad and to get publicity, but there are plenty of fanons out there that need help. I support the fanon admins Ty Nirvana 01:05, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. The fanon administrators are needed in my opinion. I remember being new, and not having a clue about fanons- how to write them. I started writing fanons and reading others later when one of my friends in formed me on how to do so. The fanon part of this wiki needs improvement. There are lots of grammatical errors in all fanons. I have had comments on just using pronouns to make my fanons better.

Also this would help the ordinary admins with their duties. I have seen how often they are asked to do things. It can't be fair to have all the tasks of maintaining behavior, wiki pages, standard, coding, general notices, fanons etc for the admins to do alone. It's too much. If we allow the Fanon Administrators to come back we would be helping the new members especially. The fanon admins would help advertise also and it gives people freedom to express Ideas they have for the series and understand how they should edit the pages to avoid it being removed. What sense does it make for having such a huge wiki being held together by such a small group of people, when there are users willing to help.

Many new members have joined the wiki over this month alone. I have tried to greet them with less complication. The welcome the admin gives you is long and hard to understand sometimes. It would only benefit us as a group and also the people who don't really edit the canon categories, and users who are inactive but still want to contribute. It would fairly help the wiki's population. Others would be attracted to join the wiki. Coding is also a big issue. When you would like to have your fanon have a background and get a font style and get the name done in different colours etc is confusing. I had to figure out that on my own. \

Adding Images- this is a great problem. Images are deleted like crazy on this wiki. If people understood the rules about what types of images can be added. e.g. Canon pictures cannot be altered. This is just one example of the may rules I have had to learn the hard way. If we have more users that can focus on the fanon side of the Wiki this problem will less likely to have occurred.

I will end on this note- The Fanonbenders cannot handle the whole fanon portal by themselves. Why turn down the help you can get from other users who just want to be a bigger part of the community and really influence the users. I am not saying the Fanon Administartors can handle the whole fanon side on their own, but having help is a start.

"Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success"

— Unknown.

--Dragon Royalty Flame 01:32, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what exactly would be the benefit in recreating the position. There are plenty of great fanon users out there who are easily able to help anyone out with any fanon-related question or matter, and can easily be a good judge of what belongs in the space or not without needing an extra title. This goes back to the reason we ended the FA position in the first place - because any user can fill the role of what an FA did in the past. There is no need to bring the position back mainly for that reason too. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? 02:49, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

The reason's I'm seeing for support of fanon administrator don't seem to exist. For example, you say having fanon admins would help getting the word out to newer users about image policy and how not to have their images deleted. I'm sorry, but no- that wouldn't change a thing. Users would still join and upload whatever they want and end up getting images deleted, and then have an explanation on their wall as for why. I should know, I've done it countless times. Usually all it takes is the courtesy to leave them a message and talk with them about it, even suggesting the use of photobucket for hotlinking images so that they can use images that have been altered.

Fanon administrators is nothing but a bureaucratic duplication of position, with less rights anyway. They essentially are rollbacks with a title. Their position only led to confusion via division of position, and now that it has been done away with, everything is much more seamless and nobody has to be confused with who to approach or why. And I'm sorry; but it is silly to claim that all admins do is just a little page move here or there - when it's the same thing a fanon admin would be doing.

Bottom line is there really is no need for such a position. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 02:52, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I never said they would prevent image deletion. Somebody else brought that up, but it isn't part of my argument. I don't know how there can be less confusion as to who to ask for fanon help when there is nothing anywhere that says who to ask for fanon help. With fanon "administrators" it would be clear who is best to ask. Also, I never said all the admins did was move around pages, and that wouldn't be the fanon "administrator's" jobs either. What I'm saying is that sure we can have users who edit in the fanon space, but with people charged with that specific responsibility, more of it would get done. With actual responsibility comes actual results. I think all some people really have an issue with the whole "admin" title. Fine, let's call them "Fanon Captains." I don't care. They wouldn't have extra rights. Their sole purpose would be to guide fanon authors and help them out further than a Joe User would. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 02:58, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I must oppose this proposal essentially for the same reasons I opposed the initial forum to abolish this position in February. At the time of fanon/canon wiki merger, the fanon writers and canon editors in the wiki were generally not one in the same, not to the extent that they are today. At this point, many regular canon editors write fanons and also help with fanon portal upkeep. At the moment, there aren't many editors who solely focus on fanon and are not involved anywhere else on the wiki; so any potential fanon administrators would not likely be solely dedicated to the fanon portal; the communities have grown together and are now simply one large site. When fanon administrators were around, they were all involved in the main namespace to a decent extent, and their rights were sometimes used to complete canon tasks rather than fanon tasks. Perhaps the Fanonbenders could take on a few extra projects and responsibilities and maybe even set a few goals to reach in maitaining fanon quality, but right now I do not see a major problem in how we handle fanon that warrants the recreation of the FA position. Annawantimes (Talk) 03:04, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I think we can find more common ground on this forum if we could alleviate some confusion about the fanon admin position. When the wikis merged, the admins from Avatar Fanon Wiki were given some extra rights so that they could continue functioning in the role that they had before. Their practices were different from the canon wiki, so there were a lot of misunderstandings about the position. By the time I was a fanon admin, there were two sides to it: the user rights side and the user group side. The user rights side became an inefficiency after a while, and we dealt with that it in the forum back in February.

The “user group” side was all the things that – anyone is allowed to do – though people often associated with the fanon admins: helping users, updating general pages, upkeep of the fanon portal main page – and of course the big cleanup we did in late 2011/early 2012, etc. I say that because at that point we were functioning more like a user group than a user rights group – I know it’s not technically a user group, but Lady, KFB and I functioned like one – kind of like the BSST and Standards Council, which are also not official user groups.

Unlike the user rights side, the “user group” side of the fanon admin position seems to be greatly missed by some. I agree with Omashu Rocks in trying to fill in this void, so that the fanon portal as a whole is looked after. However, I don’t think they should have any “authority” over the portal, but just users who step up and help maintain it. In other words, they should have leeway to make changes to general pages, but their edits could be contested by anyone else, just like when someone makes a canon edit.

There was another forum shortly after the last one to create some sort of Fanon Council to handle some of that role. I think we should modify the present proposal to include some of the duties from there. Here’s my version:

• Dedicate their time to editing to the fanon articles, including templates and categories.
• Maintain featured fanon nominations.
• Maintain the fanon portal main page.
• Maintain other general pages such as the news and updates area, fanonbending nominations, review index, etc.
• Select the Fanon Awards Council (possibly).
• Be available to answer questions from new users and authors, in a thorough manner, as Omashu Rocks put it.
• Improve fanon tagged as low quality.
• Work with images (something that could use a little extra help.)

If we do this, maybe the Fanonbenders could merge with it or form a subdivision. We should think up a different name for the group, since the fanon admins gives the wrong impression and fanonbenders confuses the group with fanonbending. Maybe “Fanon Moderators” or “Fanon Helpers?” --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 04:19, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose any creation of a modified version of the fanon administrators, fanon captions, fanon council or whatever you want to name it.

One of the many reasons why the fanon administrators were deleted as a function was -apart from what ARG already stated- that they posed a division of the wiki. After the merger, we pretend to be one wiki, and yet, we kept up a visual barrier that still divided the two portals. Over time, as said by Annawan I think, the communities of both "sides" became more merged and the original users for whom the function was created moved on. Though the communities largely became one, the fact that there were administrators with all the administrator rights that were said to be able to use their rights on the entire wiki and fanon administrators, that could only use their few rights on the fanon portal and on the main space solely in case of severe vandalism, still put up a barrier of division between the two. The only way to get rid of that barrier was to get rid of the group that caused it: the fanon administrators.

As for a chronological oppose of the said arguments:

@OR: Fanon administrators were not, and if they were to be brought back, will never be "authorities on the fanon portal". No one is an authority here, that goes against the entire core value this wiki is about. We have tried so hard to emphasize time and time again that administrators are not the leaders of the wiki and have no more authority and a say in the matter than the next autoconfirmed user that comes along (I would've said anonymous user, but they can't vote here and I believe they can't upload images because of wikia, though for the rest, there is no difference between the users).

You don't need to give people a title to help them dedicate their time to edit something, and if they do need that title, then they're editing and doing things for the wrong reason: prestige. For my personal experience having both been a fanon administrator and an administrator, I can honestly say that my tasks haven't changed in the least. They did not change when I went from rollback to fanon administrator, they did not change when that title was abolished, and they did not change when I become an administrator. I know, this is something personal, but I would like to use it to point out that the edits on the fanon portal do no come with having a fancy title -whatever you want that to be- but come with a personal attitude. Anyone who wants to edit the fanon portal, will edit it, and they will do so regardless of the title they have.

The Fanonbenders user group has been made for the exact reasons that you now want to create a hollow function again. Fanon administrators are not responsible and never were for all the grammar/spelling errors on the fanon portal, just as the administrators are not. Everyone can fix those, and again, it's just a question of attitude rather than a title.

The fanon infoboxes shouldn't be tampered with too much -as with every infobox- and 888 already keeps a regular eye on the workings of the infoboxes. If there are coding issues people always have found someone to help and if that person can't help, s/he'll direct them to someone who can. I was a fanon administrator and I knew only the absolute basic of coding, so I couldn't fix any template even if I wanted to.

The truth of the matter is that you can create functions all you want to be available to answer the questions of new/aspiring fanon authors, but that will not change a thing. There are plenty of occasions where we have posted guidelines and have placed links to user at whom someone can direct their questions, but they just don't. I often direct new fanon users to the "how to write a fanon" guideline and that's the first they hear of that. Creating fanon administrators under whatever name will not change that one bit.

Everyone can take care of the operation of the fanon portal's main page, so no need to dedicate that to a specific function. Besides, not that many changes need to be done there anyway.

Speaking from experience, a fanon administrator cannot help not know every struggling writer when they do not ask for help themselves fist or anything. What we can do it provide helpful guidelines etc, but we have already done that. Instead of creating an entire new function, it would be more useful to try to create the habit of when a fanon page is moved and the message is left, to include a small message as to why the fanon was moved so the author knows what to work on. Usually, the person who moved the fanon is also the person who'll get the questions of the author to help, if s/he would already ask some. Since everyone is allowed to move those inadequate page, it would thus become a moot point to create another group at the side who would be the so called exerts or whatever of the fanon portal when they will likely not be the ones who'll be getting the questions.

@Dragon Royalty: Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the fanon portal needs improving as there are countless of grammatical and spelling mistakes there, but that does not call for the need of fanon administrators, that call for the need of more dedicated editors -for example under the wing of the Fanonbenders user group.

Speaking again as someone who has held both the fanon administrator as the administrator function, I can honestly say that no one should have to worry about lessening the work load the fanon portal lays on administrators. Putting all that responsibility on the shoulders of a few users is, however, the main issue. Instead of constantly thriving to create a dedicated group under a fancy name, we ought to be striving to inspire people to edit more on the fanon portal, just by getting it more known that people can do so. Many people don't know that they are allowed to edit another person's fanon. They see an administrator do it and then automatically think that only an administrator can -yes, this is me speaking from experience and the many questions I got about that.
The tasks of an administrator you named there are largely the tasks of any user. People just keep placing too much value in titles, and thus you get proposals like this. This wiki is held together by the community as a whole, not those few people with a title.

Fanon administrators have never helped advertise fanons before, why should they now? The best they will likely do is what is being done now already: direct people to the fanon advertisement system and the FRS and those other fanon dedicated user groups.

Coding for fanon pages is deliberately held off the general guiding pages as it is not preferred as it rather goes against the mindset that this wiki tries to uphold for the fanon portal: take care of the text and story, not the fancy visual bling.

The policies as a whole are users own responsibility to read or not. The fanon image policy is part of the wiki's image policy as a whole and as such, a link to that is provided in the welcome message. If a user doesn't want to read it then, then it's his/her own responsibility to deal with the ensuing consequences of image deletion. A message can always be left to notify the person of why their image has been deleted, but that would still be a task for the administrators as the fanon administrators weren't allowed to delete images -see how it was really a hollow function that only served in name?

If the Fanonbenders can't handle the fanon portal as a whole, what is the addition of two, maybe three people going to do? We need to work on inspiring people to edit more on the fanon portal rather than to hang up more bureaucratic red tape in the form of yet another user right function.

@OR (again): "With actual responsibility comes actual results." That is not true. There are hardly any users that solely edit on the fanon portal, so those elected to have the title of whatever if would be called, will likely still edit on the main space as well, thus creating the exact same situation as before.

@ARG: That group is just another division of the wiki. That would be a resurrection of the fanon administrators without the rights and bring us back to the one of the main reasons why the function was abolished. All the things that elite group would be doing are things that everyone can and should do, so why make a group for that and create the idea that only those can do that? As I have stated above, when an administrator edits someone else's fanon, people get the impression that it's an administrator privilege. When the Fanonbenders edit fanons and put the edit summary "Fanonbender duties" you get the same result.

@All in support of bring back a function like this: So to repeat what I have said above, rather than to create another useless function that would only work great for a few weeks till the new and snazzyness of it has subsided, we should focus more on nurturing an attitude that anyone is allowed to correct spelling and grammar of a fanon -regardless of the rights they have or group they're part of. People with questions always find an answer. If there aren't any fanon administrators, it strikes me a utterly logical that directing your questions at the administrators is the next logical step, so that solves that problem. If not at the administrators, people can also go to other authors, problem solved again.

So to conclude this tremendously long post: the issue is not the lack of a group people can turn to, the issue is the lack of the right attitude and a good grasp of what every editor is allowed to do on someone else's fanon. We will not solve this by creating more titles and more seemingly elite users for new users. We should try to put more emphasis on "everyone can correct spelling and grammar, so if you're a fanon lover, please, go ahead and dive in to help". Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:46, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Of course people who are put on this council/team will still edit the mainspace. Nobody is expecting that they don't but if they were charged with the specific task of helping the fanon space, their time helping the portal would significantly increase. I like ARG's proposal. By "authority" I never meant people bossing other users around, just someone to resolve disputes, but if that part has to be struck down for the rest to be put through, fine.

Think about it, there is no harm in creating this group. Maybe you don't think we need a fanon review squad, but we have it. Maybe you don't think we need a Fanon Fact Finders, but we have it. Do we need a group dedicated to fauna? No, and they don't just edit fauna pages, but they really help. Referencing Warriors don't just fix references. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 10:55, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

We already have a user group specifically to help out the fanon portal, why create another one if the complaint is that the first one didn't work? That clearly tells me that a user group is not the solution. There is no need to create another group of seemingly elite users. The fanon portal needs an attitude change, not a so called group of experts. Most user groups are dead anyway. The past of the fanon portal and of this wiki in general has shown that a user group is not the answer and that visual division is partially why the fanon administrators were abolished. Replacing them by some council that will do the same but under a different name solves nothing, but does just turn back time to a same situation that didn't work then, and won't work now as it focuses on the wrong problem. Attitudes aren't changes by creating more division, and that would be what this group would do. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:01, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be divided, and it's just a regular old user group. If we present them in the same way we did last time, just without any extra user rights, they'll be more effective. We had a page for them, links to them on the fanon portal too. If we put all that back, Joe Author would no exactly where to go. I'm confident that most authors don't even know who the fanonbenders are. I guarantee, if you were to poll every author out there they would overwhelmingly agree that this is necessary. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 11:11, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

If they're just a regulate user group,then why do we have to pose them as being the ones that run the fanon portal? That doesn't sit right and looks like division, whether or not it is meant like that. The people that need the group to be more active can join the Fanonbenders. When authors don't know who the Fanonbenders are, why would they then know who the Fanon Council are unless we were to give them some more prestige above that of a user group -and that's exactly what we don't want. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:17, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

All of this seems entirely unnecessary. And I disagree with the questionable logic that if "there is no harm", this group should be created. That's not a suitable reason to go forming such a "usergroup" with, as you say, the "authority" to settle disputes and have the final say of things on that portal. It is divisive and has nearly no merit from what I've seen. A better and more productive thing to do would be to improve the activities of said existing Fanon usergroup rather than scrapping it all together, and pointlessly arguing here why another one should be created for no different purpose - which will in my opinion fail just as hard once the novelty has worn off. This Fanon admin idea has not worked before, and it will not work now - and it definitely won't solve the problem you're having with lack of interest in improving the fanon portal. KettleMeetPot • wall 11:24, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I never said that only they would be able to perform their tasks - and I never said anything about the "fanonbender duties" edit summary. The reasons you've given in the past for why that's not a proper summary hold up, but that's another discussion altogether. I don't see why this being something anything can do is such a strong objection. No one objects to the other user groups where anyone can make an edit, and no one objects to the BSST - anyone can make a blog. Also, creating this is not identical to the mission of the fanonbenders, who only work to improve fanon articles. Here they would help maintain the fanon advertisement rotations, news and updates page, featured fanons and similar pages - all of which require updating on a regular basis. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 17:12, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be divided if we give a few users a special title and than can be looked upon as the "leaders" of the fanon portal. Then, authors could look to them for help. Let's face it, the fanon portal is dying. We need leadership to bring it back up. Plus, having fanon admins/captains/leaders would alleviate some of the actual administrators of some of their responsibility on the fanon side of the wiki. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 23:12, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no opinion on whether there should be a dedicated user group or not, because I'm not a regular fanon author. However, the idea that we should be calling anyone "leaders" in an editing context on this wiki grates me and I will oppose any attempt to label anyone in that way. It's against everything that we've stood for in the last three or four years. It's against the foundation of our traditionally inclusive commmunity. Going backwards is not an option. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:35, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Okay addressing the images situation that I mentioned, If you want to do your own thing and upload images that are going to be deleted, be my guest. I can't stop you so whatever. The fanon administrators are here to help and people who rather edit the fanon side of the wiki have an opportunity to assist the betterment of the fanon portal more effectively. The Fanonbenders- everyone cannot join the fanonbenders, there must be another group that should be able to help. That is all I am saying. End of discussion. --Dragon Royalty Flame 00:01, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why some of the actual administrators are rejecting the idea of "leadership" because that is exactly what they are considered. Maybe you take issue with the idea of authority. I'm not saying that these people would boss others around, but the admins of this wiki are indeed leaders. They settle disputes, they block people, and they are the go-to people for help. The Fanon Captains would be the go-to people for fanon help. That's all. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 00:07, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

We reject the idea of leadership because that goes against the cornerstone of a collaborative project. Yes, we block people but only within the limits of policies established by the community. Leaders make unilateral decisions; we don't. If we are the "go-to people for help" that's only because we are more easily accessible. Non-admins answer questions posted on the walls of admins all the time. If we are perceived as leaders then that falls entirely on the eye of the beholder; we do everything to dispel that misconception. ― Thailog 00:28, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. These people wouldn't be anyone's boss, but someone who everyone can trust. For instance, I consider AvatarRokusGhost a "leader" of the fanon portal because of his impressive work, knowledge, and helpfulness, but I'm not going to take orders from him. If the term "leader" (which is really just there for lack of a better word) bothers you so much, we can take that part out. The point is, we need people who can be viewed as the guides for struggling authors. I said earlier, if we polled every author, this proposal would be accepted with over 70% of the vote. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 00:34, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

With ARG's help, I have created a modified version of the proposal. Fanon Captains would:

• Maintain standards of fanon articles, making sure the correct categories and infoboxes are used.
• Edit fanon articles to correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
• Update all fanon portal pages. The Fanon Advertisement system and News and Updates have been abandoned by their original creators.
• Resolve disputes between two authors arguing over, let's say, extreme similarity in a plot.
• Act as a guide to new/struggling fanon authors
• Be the go-to people for fanon advice and help.
• Help users who are either forgetting to add imageboxes to fanon images or doing so incorrectly
• Bring spirit into the slowly-dying fanon side of thew wiki.

Please consider this. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 02:40, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

If you consider people leaders, that's fine and good for you. But I object to formally labeling anyone as such. Leadership should be a quality people recognize, not a title given to anyone. So calling someone a "leader" or even a "captain" conveys a sense of formal status that we've always discouraged. User group designed to help people? I have no opinion on that. User group designed to lead people? No. The 888th Avatar (talk) 07:34, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "captain" label needs to be changed to something that does not sound leader-like. Other than that, I think this modification is perfect. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 08:07, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the update task and the attempt to bring spirit to the fanon portal, this group would do exactly the same as the Fanonbenders, and thus it seems useless to me to create another group for the same purpose. The fanonbenders can also take care of the updating system if a group is needed for that, spirit is a community effort, so a group will not be able to solve that on its own, and to settle disputes, no group needs to be created for that. Every suggestion to create some sort of dispute settling council has been overthrown so far. Putting that task in the hands of a user group now is doing the exact same thing, only on a smaller scale. If users have a dispute about something, they take it to their wall, and there are enough users around to moderate it if it would get out of hand, no dedicated group is needed for that.

As in regards to the images, that is also not needed for the usergroup. There have been user groups dedicated to images and they have all failed to do that. Besides, no user group needs to be created for the upkeep of the images as one person can do that in 10 minutes -yes, I speak from experience as I do this every time I log in.

So in general, this group seems a copy of the fanonbenders to me with only one more noteworthy task -that can perfectly be taken on by anyone, or be given to the Fanonbenders as well if it would be preferred to give it to a user group. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 08:30, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lostris; you don't need to create a new user group, OR. You only need to... bring back/revising the Fanonbenders. I'm working on it now, but unfortunately, school hooked me to away from Avatar Wiki. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 09:21, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

The fanon admins are unneeded as long as the fanonbenders do their job. Demon King Raizon 17:32, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Acer, I'm not creating a new user group. I'm proposing we bring back something that worked when we had it. I don't care if you call them leaders, captains, or whatever. Personally, I think it would make sense if they were called Fanon Administrators like they originally were. The fanon portal has gone downhill since their disappearance. That is not a coincidence. I really cannot understand why some people are so against this, there is no possible harm. Also, these are not a copy of the fanonbenders, as we already had the fanon administrators. This is not something new that I just made up, it's something that was effective and should be brought back. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 22:59, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that that's too casual a link. You've provided no evidence to back up that last "not a coincidence" assert you made, but on the other hand, we have extensive evidence from past fanon admins that they weren't really doing anythng rollback users couldn't do. There are also a myriad of alternative explanations for why fanons may be edited more infrequently, such as the plain and simple "Korra was airing". Isn't it funny how people care more about fanon now, after the first season is over? As far as I'm concerned, this is a proposal for a user group, and nothing more than that. The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:47, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

If the Fanon Administrators weren't a user group before they were disbanded, then they won't be now. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 00:49, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

As 888 pointed out, the declined interest in the fanon portal had likely way more to do with the airing of TLoK which started only what, 2 months after the fanon administrators were abolished, thus the series overlapped nearly the entire period afterwards. As a former fanon administrator, there is absolutely no need to bring that function back as I think you have a severe romanticized image of what we did and all. All the consequences everyone listed about work load of the current administrators and no where to turn with fanon questions are all moot points as I still get as much fanon related questions now as I did then. Let's try to get the Fanonbenders to be more active and visual, which will do a lot more for the fanon portal than bringing back an empty function. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 07:11, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

@OR: Whoops.. .Sorry for my stupidity. But, why not remake the Fanonbenders; I mean, revive it by recognize us as "fanon admin", but we're not. Fanonbenders will work well, I promise, if active people with very good edits will help us. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 08:54, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if we create a new organization from scratch or expand the Fanonbenders to include some extra responsibilities. The result is the same. As for a name, I think "Fanon Council" would sound good. It's broad enough to encompass it, and it doesn't seem overbearing. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 15:09, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this; it's only a duplicate group of Fanonbenders. Why not revive the Fanonbender U.G? Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:19, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Only if the Fanonbenders take on a lot of extra duties, like updating the main pages and the others that OR mentioned. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 15:23, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I could. ^^ But, somehow I feel that we're need more members... Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 15:34, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise: expanding the Fanonbenders' duties and adding a few members. I think they should be elected just like the Fanon Administrators were… Either way, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the recent issue with The Legend of Gyatso Tenzin. It sure would have been nice to have a Fanon Council to deal with this. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 01:31, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Fanon Council >< Fauna Council. Sounds similar, and it would be better if we're more focused on Fanonbenders, really. Remake the Fanonbenders is the best way to reviving Fanon Portal. As you know, why Fanonbenders didn't work well: most of the members are inactive. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 02:30, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Acer's idea. We should just completely overhaul the fanonbenders user group so that they are more of an authority on the fanon portal. This way users have someone to go to that specializes in fanon, when they need help. This way we wouldn't have to go through picking administrators. All of the members of the fanonbenders are great authors, and experienced users. Sokka jr • Wall • Blogs• Fanon 02:37, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I've said repeatedly that I don't care what we call it, so Fanonbenders is fine. The point I want to make clear is that if we remake the user group, it must be clearly different than what it is now, with more responsibility and more dedicated users. I propose that we hold elections for the group. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 02:41, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree for the election, it's more promising and useful. But, still stick with my voice, no Fanon Council.
PS: Congrats for being Fanonbender, OR. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 02:45, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the group must be completely redone so they are more like fanon administrators, rather than what they are now. The elections is a great idea as well. Sokka jr • Wall • Blogs• Fanon 02:48, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's just wait for the others to get a chance to look at this. Oh and thanks Acer for the fanonbending vote… as well as you Sokka jr. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 02:50, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

No election is needed, and no, no more "authority" on the fanon portal is needed. Authority is the key issue that no one has, so why give it to a user group for no reason? The is no reason to have an authority on the fanon portal as that would be a hollow title. I have stated above that nearly all the proposed focus points of that new group are either totally irrelevant or voted down before by the community. The group would have no business solving disputes between users for the same reasons that the arbitrary commission (or whatever it was called) was voted down. Having users be elected for a user group is making a ridiculous show out of it and completely destroys the purpose of a user group: gathering people who are willing to do the job.

This entire issue can be solved by asking the Fanonbenders to -just as the rest of the community can- keep on eye on the fanon main page updates and that is it. For the rest, that group would just have to be more active.

I do not mean to offend anyone with this, but I find it rather naive to think that just because their would be a so called authority on the fanon portal that things like fanon deletion because the author gave up could be avoided. As one who has worked extensively on the fanon portal, I can say that that is just not true. There are enough ways for any fanon author to find some help -there is enough help they can turn to, but you cannot force anyone to take help and if they don't want to, that's their choice. Furthermore, all that everyone can do is do a simple spelling and grammar check, but although I see a lot of people here saying that that is a big issue, I do not see a lot of people actually doing to edits to help out. So instead of discussion the creation of an empty group and meaningless title, we can better just take on the Fanonbender duties and keep a better eye on the update pages and voila, issue solved. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 10:06, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I am a new (struggling) fanon writer. I have yet to actually put it up as an official fanon as I am still working on it, but what I have been trying to do is find someone to edit it or to make a main page for it. I have messaged several that have been recommended, but only one messaged back and was unable to do it, which is completely fine, but it does feel like there is no one to turn to. I've put up requests on the request an editor page, and yet no one has responded and it feels almost like no one has even looked at it by the looks of the long list of people waiting for help. We need a group that would be able to be in charge of that. Not only themselves being editors for fanon and being able to help out, but just someone to help me out. I am saying this from something that is presently happening so I know what it's like, and while I agree with people saying that we don't need anyone in charge of the fanon portal. We do need a group (be it the fanonbenders or fanon council) that will help to assist people in fanon creating, editing, publishing, formatting, coding. So I support M A N C 21:37, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Lostris, I think we pretty much agree. Instead of creating/reinstalling a group, we can give the Fanonbenders more responsibility to help out people like Makotheactornotthecharacter. They can be the "go-to" people I keep talking about and update pages on the fanon portal. I do think that elections are necessary, but if that doesn't happen then we must make sure that the Fanonbenders are people we can trust, users dedicated to the portal. The top names that come to my mind are ARG, Minnichi, Acer, Agent Slash, and Kettlemeetpot. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 22:08, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

@Makotheactornotthecharacter: It is indeed unfortunate that no one has responded to your request yet, but creating a group for that would be useless as those people will be drowning in the requests in no time. The job that you list that needs to be done is something that the Fanonbenders are already created for.

@OR: We agree on the fact that the fanon portal needs a lot of work, but we do not agree on the method to get there. There is no need to elect people -what's the point of that. The idea is to get as many people as possible to edit on the portal, to show interest, to actually be active there, so why hold some people back just because they didn't get enough votes to join the group? That's contra-productive to the goal you want to reach. The only thing that needs to be done is more people showing interest in the fanon portal, and for that no new group or function is needed. Nor do the Fanonbenders need more "responsibilities" except for maybe to ask them to also keep an eye on the update pages. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 18:05, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

What other solution is there? I wish we could simply pump energy into the portal but that is not the case. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 18:20, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

First, fanonbenders need extra responsibilites and members. Those members: ARG, me, Minnichi, Sokka jr, BM, and Henryjh98 are don't fit with the tasks for keep the fanon portal up-to-date and clean. ARG, Minnichi, and me have our studies, Henry and Sokka jr are don't online often, and BM is nowhere to be seen. We've our out-of-wiki duties, and we ought to do all of them. The point is, let's re-install the Fanonbenders. Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 12:31, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Acer. Re-install the fanonbenders. They can handle everything. Demon King Raizon 13:34, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

And the only thing that there really is to "reinstall" is the fact that the fanon benders could also be tasked with the upkeep of the update pages, but that's it, nothing more is needed. The rest is up to the community and a change of the editing spirit and willingness to devote time to the fanon portal. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 21:10, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

It would not be a bad idea though we need to think about it. There are groups out there for the fanon portral and that might be enough. As Lostris said, the rest is up to the community. However, I will support the idea. It would be intresting to try. The Master Waterbender (My Fanon) 00:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Per Lostris; no need to change everything. Just re-install the fanonbenders. ;) Acer Evan Seek anything about fanon! 07:11, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

@The Master Waterbender: well, the issue with "interesting to try" is that the fanon administrators were abolished as a function cause they posed an unnecessary bureaucratic division between administrators and rollbacks, and because the function on itself was just not needed and did not help anything to promote fanon spirit on this wiki -again, spoken from experience. If I honestly believed that the fanon administrators were helpful, I would've opposed 888's idea when he first came to me when I was a fanon administrator to ask whether or not it would be bad to get rid of the function. I did nothing then that I didn't do prior or after I was a fanon administrator. I didn't do anything more for the fanon spirit that I didn't do prior of becoming a FA or now. The truth is just that the fanon administrators were merely an empty title and really did nothing more for that fanon portal than anyone is already doing now.

I think this forum can be closed by just asking the Fanonbenders to keep an eye out for the updates pages as well, and for the rest, the community should step up if they really feel that the fanon portal is underedited. There is no need to keep debating about bringing back a function that was abolished for reasons that still stand today. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 18:12, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems we can agree on the update pages. I would say though, that whether to have elections is under the Fanonbenders' jurisdiction. Each user group can choose their members through any means they choose as long as it's egalitarian and fair. Pro-Gamer applications can be approved by any active member, the Fire Sages hold a discussion involving all current members - and a vote if need be, the Comma Crusade approves members that prove they know proper grammar and the FRS and FFF ask prospective members to make a test review/interview. If the Fanonbenders subject their membership to a vote where any user can cast a ballot whether they're in the group or not, they shouldn't be forbidden from doing so - just like, say, the Transcript Team or the Council of Shippers could decide to hold at-large elections as well. How many users vote is of course up to who participates. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 18:42, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the Fanonbenders can do with that as they please. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 18:47, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think this should be closed because nothing has changed. The Fanon Administrators were elected, and I really don't think the Fanonbeders, if pretty much unchanged, are capable of saving the portal. If we want to keep fanon alive, at least something needs to change. I really think an elected board of experienced fanon authors and/or fanon editors is the best way to go. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 01:18, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

We have already established updating the general pages and agreed that elections are an option. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 05:01, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

I support per the above. – TechFilmer🍍 16:28, September 26, 2012 (UTC)