Adoption requests Ibanez Wiki

What is your username? Deejayk

Please link to the wiki here:

How many edits have you made on that wiki? Over 2,000

How many days/months have you been editing there? Since April 5, 2016

On the Special Pages → Special:ListAdmins when was the last time an admin edited, and who was it? Brambram on April 7, 2011

Any other information: This site's founder and sole admin/bureaucrat, Bram Boerboom, appears to have abandoned the project over five years ago. I've started editing the wiki in the past month and have made a decent number of changes including adding nearly 50 new pages, and generating over 2,000 edits. I've completed quite a bit of general wiki maintenance and cleanup (adding and organizing categories, fixing double-redirects, etc.) in that time. I've also added significant new functionality to several widely-used templates and have made changes to the site's front page.

I've endeavored to build community on the wiki through the use of the forum and blog posts which state my intentions for the wiki and solicit feedback. Through these efforts I have connected with one other active user with whom I've had extensive discussions about efforts to improve the wiki.

I've made every effort to contact the founder and sole admin, including (but not limited to) a post on his talk page over a week past, wherein I indicated that I was planning to attempt to adopt the wiki unless I heard from him. Unfortunately, my efforts to reach out have not been fruitful. I've created a forum post on the Ibanez wiki as notification to the wiki community that I have submitted this adoption request.

Since no active admin or bureaucrat is present, I would like to request both admin and bureaucrat rights.

 \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:15, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
Keep up the good editing everyday dude.Muzzarino 19:07, May 2, 2016 (UTC) 
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
If we are taking a vote, I am going to vote NO for this request. That does not mean that I will not change my vote in the future. But as of today, user DeeJayK has only been on the site for one month. One month is not enough time to even be considered a regular user, it certainly should not be considered a enough time for someone to be given any sort of special priviledges.
And the 2000 edits that he says he made:
1. many of the edits are 'multiple edits', where he makes numerous edits to the same page. The 2000 edits could have easily been 200-300 edits. And, again, this has all been within one month. Once he is done with his little project (overhaul), he will no longer be making 2000 edits in a month. 
2. most of the edits made are the user's own 'special plan' for what he thinks the site should be. While that is good that he is taking inititive, he shouldn't be given "brownie points" by including those types of edits in his total. For example, if I ran a site listing only the Presidents of the United States, and then someone came in and added the Vice Presidents and the Speakers of the House > they should not be given given an applaud for making all of those extra edits. Those edits would go beyond the scope of the original intent. That doesn't make it wrong, or bad, but it does mean when looking at the total number of edits, that we do not give them the same weight as the important edits. 
My screen name may not have many edits, so I don't know how much weight my opinion carries, but I have been an "IP User" on the Ibanez wiki for just under 2 years. Undoing vandalism and correcting errors as I have come across them (without specifically reviewing each and every page that was there before I arrived). I don't pretend to know how to do all of the various page/template creations that DeeJayK has made. But this wiki is a list of "solid bodied electric" guitars from one specific manufacturer. We do not need active administrators because there shouldn't be too many changes - with the exception of adding a new model every few years as they occur. If you feel someone needs to be an admin, after two years, it should be me - as I am the "regular user" that has demonstrated longevity. However, my vote is that my we do not need anyone and certainly DeeJayK has not been here long enough to have earned it.
Another name, KainTGC, has been assisting DeeJayK in this overhaul. Again, that is great that he wants to help. But he sat dormant for 3 years. He can blame no one but himself for what hasn't happened to the site over the years. He was here, and he (as demonstrated by his recent edits) knows how to do some of the creations that I do not. Again, not a historical record for someone that could be in the running for administrative rights.  
Thank you for listening--Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 21:44, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
Yes, Noneof yourbusiness48, I think it should go without saying that if someone makes over 2000 edits in less than a month, some of those edits may not be that consequential. In fact, a large majority of my edits consist of little or nothing more than adding a category. I'm not hanging my hat simply on an edit count. That said, I have created nearly 50 new pages and I don't think it's hyperbole to state that (in concert with KainTGC) I've changed the overall look and feel of the wiki more in the past month than anyone in at least the past five years.
Also, this is not any sort of power grab on my part, merely a plea to have some active user who can (and will) perform administrative and bureaucratic tasks — ideally, we'd have a group of such admins. I simply I don't understand your argument that the wiki needs no admin. If someone else with more "tenure" on the wiki wants to take on that role, then by all means throw your hat in the ring.  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 02:38, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)

Looks good, just don't forget to edit at least once a day before staff reviews this, good luck! Darytyg The Furry Darryn (talk) 09:10, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
I find that to be utterly hysterical. "Edit at least once a day", for a site that would usually get one edit (usually spam) a week.
As I said above, the site is about one type of guitar from one manufacturer - there is no reason to edit anything. Once a new guitar model gets released, add the information and go away. There won't be a reason to update anything for that model for a few years. It's not like cars that get changed every year. It's not like Tv Show sites that gets updated with weekly episodes, a character's backstory, or actors personal information. This sort of page is not going to get high volumes of edits.
I have found very little use for the bulk of the edits he has made so far. And it gets worse --- for a guy wanting admin rights, and making 2000 edits in one month, why am I still the one removing spam and undoing bad edits? I click on 'recent activity' and scroll through all of the edits these two guys have been making and there sits the once-a-week spam. It's almost as if nothing matters to them except their own overhaul. I've said it before, once they are done with their project, then what are they going to do. There won't be anything for them to do, except the same as I do, once a week we get someone that will come in and spam a couple pages - click undo, and go about your merry way. Yet, you are encouraging him to "edit at least once a day". --Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 11:49, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
It's a encouragement listed to try and give advice bud, you can either take it or don't. I am only trying to help, not telling you how to edit on the wiki. Darytyg The Furry Darryn (talk) 06:53, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
@Noneof yourbusiness48, please don't critize. It is very disrespectful and discouraging. What you can do is leave a kinder note.
12:07, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
@Noneof yourbusiness48, I appreciate that you're finding your voice in this forum. In the time I've been involved with the Ibanez Wiki, I've repeatedly spelled out my ideas for the site and have solicited opinions from other users through blog posts and the site forum. You have yet to respond to any of those pleas (even if just to defend the status quo). Maybe we have different ideas of what an "admin" is, but to me the most important aspect of that role is to build community while taking a holistic view of the site and actively plotting its course. That is what I have tried to do over the course of my involvement. In my mind, policing bad edits, while important, is not the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) role of an admin. Second, as to your assertion that I have ignored "spam" cleanup in my efforts, that is patently false — I would estimate that I've cleaned up at least 30 pages that were populated with utter garbage. And who's to say that if you hadn't reverted the edit you are referring to that myself or someone else wouldn't have done the same by now?
As to your assertion that the wiki needs no updating, I could not disagree with that more forcefully. When I started participating 6+ weeks ago there had been basically NO documentation of any new guitars released since 2011. As such, bringing the wiki up to date has been a primary goal and myself and another editor have nearly brought it up to date through 2013, with the goal of completing that effort through 2016 as soon as possible. Beyond the updating, there's plenty more work to document older models. The site has pretty decent coverage of guitars back to around 1987, but my goal would be to make this coverage comprehensive and to go back even further. Then there is the prospect of further documenting Ibanez artists, parts, etc., and even eventually expanding the scope to cover hollow-body guitars, and eventually acoustics, bass guitars, and everything else Ibanez. So to make the assertion that this is a static site that requires no updating or maintenance is patently ridiculous, as I see nearly endless opportunities for improvement and expansion.
To recap, when I first visited this wiki I found a site that had been essentially trapped in amber since it was deserted by its founder (and sole admin/bureaucrat) over five years previous. My goal from the beginning has been to breathe life into the site and make it into the premier site for Ibanez information that it aspires to be. Again, thanks for sharing your opinions here, but I could really use your input on the site itself. Rock on!  \m/ DeeJayKTalk!14:49, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)

Good luck on editing and don't worry about the negative my friend do what you do! Beyonder (talk) 12:32, May 12, 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGodOmnipotent

That is hardly 'negative'. If someone wants to take over a site, I would expect that it be based on something more than "I made some edits". Why, during his 2700 edits, is someone else reverting the spam. Shouldn't that be something that an admin does? Sure, it may have only been a couple edits that needed reverted, but those couple edits is all the activity that the site gets because there is nothing that needs regularly added or changed.
I am simply the dissenting opinion. A dissenting opinion, I may add, from someone who actually uses the Ibanez site. Do you use the Ibanez site? If not, why is your opinion relevant as to whether or not he takes it over.--Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 14:42, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)

Regardless of Noneofyourbusiness, did you create a blog as I see more users.

19:58, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
@Andrew_Cao, I've done everything I can think of to encourage more participation, including posting several blog posts which I'm made to appear on the front page of the site. The response has been somewhat disappointing from the perpective of the number of users who have made any response, but my efforts have been welcomed by at least one other user who has become very active as well. If you have any other outreach ideas you can share, I'd be interested in hearing them. If you want to contact me directly you can do so at Thanks for your interest!  \m/ DeeJayKTalk!21:21, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial response: (Please wait for an official response by a staff member)
Hello, KainTGC here. I take part in the discussion as my name was quoted here and I'm the one currently working with Deejayk on the Ibanez wiki. I will not discuss Noneof yourbusiness48 comments which are utterly disrespectful towards the two of us. Actually this Ibanez Wiki asks for a lot of work, not only to add new models but also to make sure every tiny details, like wood species or hardware parts, are still correct years after years for every models (a guitar with a same model number can face quite a large number of upgrades, and it demands careful researches for every model). We also have to manage hardware parts, Ibby artists... tons of pages featuring very different kind of contents. Categories were also a major part of our work, making sure every page is well referenced, with parent/child categories entirely revamped all over the wiki. It is now way easier to navigate between sections.

Last but not least, there is a good, should I say a perfect synergy between Deejayk and me because we talk A LOT about every update/change we make (the discussion is open to everybody in the forum btw). It can be quite controversial sometimes but we always find a solution. Last, Deejayk not only adds contents to the wiki, but he tries to builds a community as well so that people can share their view: the wiki today is more dynamic than it ever was, thanks to him -and that's also the reason why I'm more active these weeks. It goes without saying, I totally support his candidature. Best regards. --KainTGC (talk) 05:09, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Noneof yourbusiness48 to stop.

12:12, May 16, 2016 (UTC)


Noneof yourbusiness48 - I appreciate you taking the time to comment here, and I did take time to consider your arguments. However, the entire discussion of the direction and growth of the wiki belonged on the wiki, and the others are right that you have not made any effort to join discussions there. You have also made very few recent edits, either as an account or an IP. It appears that your objections to the promotion are mainly that you do not want any admin at all, nor any growth at all for the wiki. However that is not in the community's best interest; maintaining a static, barely changing site should not be the purpose of any wiki. While I'm sure that Deejayk and KainTGC both appreciate the work you have done over the last few years to keep the wiki in good shape, they do want the community to grow, and the content they are adding appears to be appropriate to the topic.
Deejayk, I've given you the rights. Good luck to all of you with the wiki. -- Wendy (talk@fandom 04:27, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Wendy!  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 12:22, May 17, 2016 (UTC)