Talk: Administrators

Changing this article

I'm not really sure if the article should be kept the way it is, as Dragon Ball Wiki doesn't really seem to follow the whole "4 project heads" and the fact that it's hard enough to understand as it is. I'm wondering if the whole article should be changed around, but I'd like to get some opinions first before hand.

talk contr

04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we pretty much handle all sorts of different things, so I guess it would be limited to just say we each do one. The basis of limiting it to "4 project heads" seems to be faulty only to the extent that we all agree on setting this up more accurately. I assume what we can do is get input from Nonoitall and see if we can come to a better construct for this article's setup. - PrinceZarbon (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We've never really conformed to these guidelines. (In fact, we never even bothered to change the name Marpedia to Dragon Ball Wiki.) Given that we only have a few administrators and we all simply perform whatever task an occasion calls for, I don't see why we couldn't just say that, and then have a list of the wiki's admins. --  talk contr 07:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it around, tell me what you guys think and tweak as necessary of course.

talk contr

04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Applications (currently inactive)

I grafted an application in regards to this. It would help us in future selection if the need for an administrator arises. Some formal questions for applications in the future, and a construct for proper application format would be as follows.

Administrator Application

This questionnaire created for administrative position applicants

1. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you fulfill all the necessary actions described, but not limited to, in the basic guidelines? Please describe.
2. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you promise to try your best to maintain an accurate encyclopedic resource? As an administrator, would you promise to leave out your opinion from articles and sustain factual coherency and actual material? Please describe.
3. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, what editing skills do you think you could bring that would benefit the wikia most? Please describe.
4. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you promise to maintain a proper temperament and mature tone, and always treat other members with respect where needed? Please describe.
5. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, how often do you think you would be able to check up on the wikia's updates and edits on a systematic basis? How many articles do you think you can track, watch and maintain? Please describe.
6. Q: Do you have any basic knowledge of formatting and editing templates? Please describe.
7. Q: Do you have any basic knowledge of editing images, formatting articles, maintaining a proper outline, and following the Manual of Style as a proper reference and guideline for editing? Please describe.
8. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you promise to stop edit warring where witnessed, delete inaccurate material, and revert false material where found?
9. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you promise to block users or unknown IP's who create problems for the wikia? How lenient would you be in terms of administrative duties and punitive measures/blocks? Would you be strict where necessary and lenient where applicable? Please describe.
10. Q: If you were chosen as an administrator, would you work alongside fellow administrators and aid them where needed, listen to them where appropriate, and follow instructions when applicable? Would you treat your fellow comrades with respect and ensure to help them in all instances? Would you go along with their requests and be flexible, and oftentimes understand when they may be facing problematic circumstances? Please describe.
11. Q: Do you have any distinct knowledge of article formatting, proper line breaks, removing useless line breaks, improper formatting, and the initial construct of an article? It's imperative that you be able to follow proper formatting. Please describe.
12. Q: How well do you know about the series' episodic and movie dimensions? How well do you know the differences between canon and non-canon material, filler and manga-originated material, and improper and proper dubbing? Please describe.
13. Q: How well do you know about trivia in relation to the series and manga? What do you think makes for proper trivia material in an article? Please describe.
14. Q: Do you promise to maintain and sustain grammar and spelling accuracy in articles? How confident are you of your writing, spelling, and grammar skills and capabilities? Please describe.
15. Q: Who is your favorite character in the Dragon Ball universe, and why? Please describe.

This should be a nice formal account for responses to the questionnaire; the application holds grounds for maintaining a proper resource, and formulates the grounds necessary for selecting proper candidates in the future. What do you think SSJGoku93? - PrinceZarbon (talk) 05:14, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately I'm not sure how useful an application will be in the long run. In general, suitable candidates for admin-ship will demonstrate that suitability without ever being asked a question. It might be more beneficial to have a list of guidelines, which candidates should already be demonstrating an ability to follow when they are considered for admin-ship.

In any event we don't need to get too ultra-formal here. (This is a wiki that should be fun, not a job interview. :-D) If it turns out that someone selected to be a sysop can't fit into that role, it's a fairly simple matter for any bureaucrat or staff member to revoke the flag. Not that we should just go passing out sysop flags like they're candy, but like I said, it's not the end of the world if a new admin doesn't turn out perfectly.

My biggest concern for a user being considered for admin-ship is that he be able to use the added power discreetly. Technically speaking, admins just get a few more buttons than standard users: Deletion/restoration, un/blocking and un/protection. An admin should be dispassionate when he must use those functions. (This may mean that the admin must yield his own preference to the consensus of the community or the good of the wiki.)

That aside, it's always ideal when an admin has the literacy to write in a polished manner, or the technical expertise to create templates, or the knowledge to know what's canon and what's not. But I wouldn't say those are strict requirements. Any standard user can fill in those gaps, and it's better to have an unlettered, objective admin than a literate, rash admin.

I'm sure you guys already know that stuff, but I'm just pointing out what I think the focus of the guidelines/questionnaire/whatever should be. Hope I didn't come across as harsh — I do think it's a good idea to have standards set for this sort of thing and I do think you're headed in the right direction getting something written up. Anyway, that's my two cents. :-) --  talk contr 06:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Looks just about perfect to me, I do agree with Nonoitall in the sense that "should be fun not a job interview" but being an admin does takes a lot of responsibility, and we'd need to find the most reputable users for the job. Any whom, the application looks fantastic, would not change a thing.

talk contr

17:33, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

The last question I tossed in, I meant to be a fun one, so it breaks the ice. But I think I covered all the aspects in terms of a basic outline for administrative abilities. - PrinceZarbon (talk) 18:10, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

List of playable characters in the Raging Blast series

what happen to this page? it's a page for list of playable characters in the Budokai Tenkaichi Series, so why isn't their one for the Raging Blast Series?. i'm geting ticked off. everytime i tried and create a page, it gets deleted. Nikon23 22:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

FanFiction?

Yeah, I'm not really sure if this is the right place to put this but I would like to ask a question:

Is there any place where you can make Fanfiction on this sight. If not, then I believe that someone ought to put up a category for it.(121.74.66.78 13:13, April 20, 2013 (UTC))

No fanfiction please. It's pure canon wiki. Check out Manual of Style for Fanfiction DB Wiki's.What are you so afraid of Cell? 13:46, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Right, we only have articles on officially published material here. You can absolutely read and write fanfiction though, and I'll give you the options here. The best option is to use the Dragon Ball Fanon Wiki, our sister site where the whole purpose is to post fan fiction. There is plenty to read there, too. The other options, if you would like to post it on this site instead, are to use blogs or forums to post your fiction. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:26, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Blake Songne

MY name is Blake Songne, im gonna start off by saying what most do, im a huge fan of dragonballl.

i jus recently joined a chat, and from the very beggining it was insulting sarcastic, they started talking about mental illness sayin they had it, so i felt comfortable to say mine, after saying mine i was sarcasticly ganged up on.... Im not here to be an admin, im jus here to let u guys know this goku guy the admin in chat, hes not doing a very great job, they constantly attack me so of course i resort to some mild profanity, very mild... i said douche bag...

I was then banned.. for good,

now if im correct a douche is a female cleaning product, and a bag is something u can put them in....

WHy was i banned and why arent people like (ME) who can respect others as True fans and love the fans like i do, even though these guys are beinging hurtfull.

Respect resides in my mind for any individual that likes dragon ball or z.

i respect those guys because they know what good anime is regardless of there agendas. this umm goku 777 guy isnt no angel, but i respect the guy and refuse to be rude,and i didnt..... if i owned a dedicated chat server i would treat people like royalty i can use all the friends i can get, and im always down to make new ones, unlike these guys in chat who claim respect is earned.... in other words there saying u get treated bad until they get tired of treating u that way.. thats not kool and i would like a chat room to show u guys how its done. i dont beleieve its fair to defend myself for having a mental illness without being able to use some profanity.

SORRY show those guys..... NOT you,good day fellow dragonball fan. hopefully u can think about my request. thnk u and bye. im not sure how the chat function works but i run dedicated servers familiar with port forwarding level design for various engines and creating wads and pwads

Blake Songne 06:04, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

You still can't call people that. I'm going to have to kindly oppose your request. Your behavior wasn't exactly the spitting image of an administrator, or a chatmoderator...

P.S.: You were not banned for good. Dark Seeker Kotsu   06:17, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am Jeff the Janemba Freak, and I was the one called.... *sniff* a douche bag. This term is jus- just so offensive. I personally can't believe someone in today's society using it, but somehow THIS MAN used it against ME! My dignity was stripped, my hopes were crushed, and my manhood was destroyed. I could hardly go one. I had to take 3 month of therapy to even talk on the chat again. Please, if you have any mercy in your heart, don't give this man rights. Thank you. JanembaFreak97 06:41, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Blake Songne. However, please do not delete existing messages on a talk page, and please do not put your message above existing topics. Just post yours at the bottom and we will know that it is the newest. Kotsu, please talk to Goku777 about what happened. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:18, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Blake left out that Goku777 kicked JanembaFreak for behaving as he did. I witnessed it all. Goku did do his job, and he did it well. Blake is the one at fault for insulting another user. Goku did not insult Blake or do his job incorrectly, but when Blake tried to use a disability as an excuse for spam-like posts, Goku warned him not to and said that it was an invalid excuse because many of us have disabilities as well. Nothing cruel came from him.

Dark Seeker Kotsu   23:36, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Mehki.smalls

a man what had i done. what did i get restrited  for  . why did i get restrited . you know how long ive been dying to chat on your wiki.Mehki.smalls (talk) 03:44, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

You were banned in March 2014 for spamming, with a chat ban duration of one year. It's been 7 months, so I'll remove the ban. Please review the site rules page, namely not spamming in chat. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:08, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Promotion Procedures

The current official procedure for promotions to admin or bureaucrat is that a current bureaucrat makes the selection. In reality, a combination of current admins and other users have been asked for input as well, with the bureaucrat still making the final decision. So the question is, should we make the “consultations for input” a requirement, and if so who should get to add input. Or should the promotion process be something else altogether? Wikia rights management currently only allows bureaucrats to make final promotions (kind of the point of differentiating between admins and bureaucrats), so it would be difficult to deviate from that piece. Other steps are up for discussion here. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 14:20, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a requirement to get input from more than half the active admins to pick a new admin, and more than half the active bureaucrats before picking a bureaucrat, with the final decision in both cases still being the bureaucrat. I think we should say collecting other user input is optional, since it’s too easy for sock puppets or fake proxies to swing things if we were to move to something like a sitewide vote for new admins. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 14:27, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I think that a better procedure is needed than the current one. My personal suggestion is that whenever we are having promotions, we open up a forum where people can discuss candidates and then users can input whether they Support or are Against.

We should also ensure that the candidate partakes in the discussion prior to their promotion. In the past we have promoted people without warning, without them even being aware they were a candidate and I don't think this is the right way of going about things. A candidate may very well not wish to be an admin and refuse altogether. A candidate should not be promoted before they themselves have input on the subject.

Thoughts? --Neffyarious (talk) 13:22, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we should aim to keep a steady and consistent amount of admins at one particular time. At the moment we have 5 which seems like an ideal number.

I definitely agree with the candidate themselves giving their opinion. I myself was made a mod out of the blue and didn't even know it was being talked about. I didn't mind but others might want to know beforehand due to what it involves.Bullza (talk) 14:00, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

To counter sock puppets and fake proxies, we could just make it so that the input of new users will not be as relevant, since they have not been active long and don't know the wiki that well it should be fine. I do not think that no matter what the final decision should still be the bureaucrat, the bureaucrat should go with the community's decision.--Neffyarious (talk) 17:12, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the current admin selection procedure is bad, mostly because in the Spanish the bureaucrat makes the decision, especially after talking to other admins. The main difference between that wiki and this is that in the Spanish wiki you must start having rollback powers, then if you keep contributing they promote you to moderator, then vigilante, then admin, etc, and not start right out as an admin.

I think a better procedure here would be consensus between admins and having some feedback from the community (like creating a thread in the forum and hear some opinion from regular users), but as of now, I think the current number of active admins are enough and sufficient.

Greetings. ~ Yon ~Visit my talk page! 19:21, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

To summarize so far, we have a few of us saying admin consensus should be required for new admins and none against that. A couple saying at some point in the process the candidate should be asked if they want the new rights and none against that. And mostly in favor of some level of input from users but against formal consensus/user forum/vote for new admins by all users. I like these ideas because it puts new admin selection into the hands of people who are currently experiencing being admins and know what it takes. I would naturally apply the same logic to bureaucrats generally picking the correct people to pick new bureaucrats. Also one person pointed out we could add intermediate steps (like Rollback) prior to admin promotions. Here is my proposed rewrite:

• • “Administrators are selected by a consensus among the current active administrators and bureaucrats, and will be confirmed upon the consensus admin candidate accepting their new user rights. Bureaucrats are selected by a consensus among the current active bureaucrats, and will be confirmed upon the consensus bureaucrat candidate accepting their new user rights. The community at large is invited to nominate any user for any position at any time, but general user consensus is neither required nor sufficient for user rights changes.”

Good? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:01, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Pretty good, but personally I think that both admins and bureaucrats should be involved in the promotion of new bureaucrats. Say (in the case we have two bureaucrats, as we currently do) one bureaucrat was for a new bureaucrat, while one was against, the admins would be needed to finalize the decision since it would be deadlocked otherwise.--Neffyarious (talk) 20:38, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think we need to formalize a backup plan for the unlikely combination of (1) a third bureaucrat is needed due to having a tremendous number of admins, at the same time as (2) the current bureaucrats are diametrically opposed on whether or not a specific candidate is ready or not. In fact, if one of the bureaucrats gives a hard NO to a candidate, the candidate is probably not ready. Same for admins—if a current admin feels strongly that a candidate is a really bad choice to make a new admin, I know I would tend to say the candidate isn’t ready. The endpoint in a consensus, unlike a vote, should be everyone being either enthusiastic YES, or at least agreeing to go with what the group says. If someone involved is still shouting NO, a consensus has not been reached. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:35, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

This and our previous discussion make me think it might be helpful for us to be a little clearer about what consensus means and how it differs from a vote. I think it is not as straightforward as I had once assumed. I could probably find a nice academic link to stick on the Rules page somewhere. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:37, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and did that. I linked to Wikipedia, whose article seemed adequate. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:47, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. ~ Yon ~Visit my talk page! 22:16, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be a community vote that allows everyone, even non staff members, to give their input. But the crats should still make the final decision of course. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 15:00, May 20, 2018 (UTC)

How do we reconcile calling it a vote when the bureaucrats make the decision? Is there a phrasing you recommend? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:00, May 20, 2018 (UTC)

So basically say like when I requested /d mod/admin, after i asked a crat or an admin for endorsement to become an admin and assuming they said yes, i would then create an application and post it requesting it and the endorsing admin would make a comment on it saying they endorse me and why. Then, it will be open for voting. Any and everyone will vote and preferably explain why they are voting that way. After a set amount of time the voting will be closed and the crats will have to make a decision. They will consider all the input and discuss with each other privately on what they think. Then, they will make their decision based on what the community thinks and what they think collectively. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 12:58, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a “vote” but not using the majority decision would be upsetting to the community at large. If what we want is for the bureaucrats to make the final decision (what most of us have expressed here and what Wikia user rights are currently set up for), which is our current process, but we also want semi-formal input from admins and general users to be considered, then we could do a forum for nominees like has been dually suggested here. However, I recommend we explicitly state it is not a vote, and comments are welcome but unjustified YES/NO statements will be ignored. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:10, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

So how about:

• All users are invited to suggest any user for an admin or bureaucrat position at any time by leaving a message on a bureaucrat or admin's talk page. If that bureaucrat or admin chooses to "Endorse" the nominee, they may do so by creating a "Nomination Thread" on this article's talk page including the nominee's username, the position they are nominated for, and the date in the thread's title. Admins can endorse users for admin rights, and bureaucrats can endorse users for either (and thus users cannot endorse themselves). Users without these rights are not allowed to create nomination threads, but anyone can post within an existing nomination thread. The thread is a place for open discussion about the nominee's ability to be an admin or bureaucrat, but will not be a vote. Yes/no comments without justification will be ignored. Discussion will proceed for 1 week on the thread, after which time the bureaucrats will consider the comments and reach a consensus amongst themselves. If the bureaucrats' consensus is in favor of promotion to admin or bureaucrat, the user will be asked on their talk page if they accept. If so, a bureaucrat will add the new user rights accordingly.

I think this is pretty good in that it involves the community a lot more. Downsides are users creating these threads without appropriate rights and us having to take them down in that case, relative complexity vs. our current system, and the amount of time to do this is at least 1 week, none of which is a deal-breaker IMO. Thoughts on this write-up? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:41, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

Should I assume from 3 days of silence that this is what we're agreeing to? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:15, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

I think that sounds alright. 0551E80Y (talk) 03:03, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I like that idea. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 14:45, May 27, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post the new process. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 15:55, May 27, 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds fair to me. I'd like to specifically point out that I agree with what was said about the dividing bureaucrats decision as well. If someone is being considered for an admin and even one bureaucrat was to say no on it then there's probably a good reason for it. That's something that would probably require all bureaucrats to agree on the same thing.Bullza (talk) 15:57, May 27, 2018 (UTC)

DragonBallZ050

About last week, this person User:Legendary Super Saiyan Fennekin was given the position of Social Administrator replacing User:0551E80Y who hadn't been active for a few months. This also mainly happened because she agreed to not touch upon the Wiki side of things, just the Discussion side and because she was endorsed by User:Sosuagwu17.

Then shortly after that User:DragonBallZ050 who was already a Discussions Mod asked for the same position. I only gave that person Chat Mod privileges though.

But now Fennekin appears to be endorsing this person as being another Social Administrator and gave her reasons as to why.

Time Zones- I run on US Pacific Time, and a lot of the users go by US Eastern Time and GMT. So, a fair amount of stuff happens when I am offline. DragonBallZ050 is in England, so when I am off, he can keep a handle on things.

Active- Much like me, he is very active on this Wiki.

Sticks close to the rules- He keeps to the rules and does a very good job at keeping others to the rules, as well.

Personality- He has a good, Admin-like personality. He is polite, but tough when needed. He is always willing to help someone when they need it, and is supportive of all Users.

Experienced- He is a HUGE help on this Wiki, Weebipedia, and the Dragon Ball GT and AF Wiki. He does an outstanding job on them

Now this person too has I think agreed to also stick to mainly handling the discussion side of the site which would be the only reason why I would consider something like this to begin with. I'm not sure if two of these roles are needed, the only added benefit to being an Admin in this scenario would be too block other users. I would have thought one would have been enough but I don't know really much about that side of the site or how active it is but Fennekin seems to think it would be a good idea to have round the clock Admins for this.

So I wanted to get other peoples input on it. It is your local hero, Bullza! ^{Have any questions? Talk here at User talk:Bullza| Let me know} 09:53, February 12, 2020 (UTC)

Well that portion of the wiki is fairly small and doesn’t really need a lot of moderators to moderate that area since JBour and 0551E80Y were able to moderate that area alone even without discussions moderators present at the time they were still active. Fenn will do just fine as being the only social administator and since she has some assistance from a few discussions moderator it wouldn't hurt for her to do it alone. 1 Social Admin is enough for a fairly small portion of the wiki in my opinion.       11:59,7/14/2020