FANDOM


  • If you have any questions about staff nominations, voting or any situation related to it, this is the place to ask. From now on questions will be deleted from any other threads in order to keep them to the point.

      Loading editor
    • Dt wrote in the rollback thread: 

      For other roles, you nominate other users. So, as written, there is no restriction on nominating yourself for Rollback and vouching for another user.


      Does that mean if you nominate yourself in the chat mod thread, you can also vouch for someone too just like in the rollback thread during the same week?

        Loading editor
    • Each position is independantly considered. You can nominate yourself as Rollback, Nominate a Chat Moderator and vouch for a Wiki moderator.

        Loading editor
    • Do rollbacks get to edit and delete comments?

        Loading editor
    • No. They don't. Rollbacks simply have access to a shortcut to undo vandalism.

        Loading editor
    • ie, if a vandal make multiple edits to a single page, someone with the rollback tool can rollback those edits and revert the page to what is looked like before the vandal hit it. If it's just a single edit, you don't necessarily need to use rollback, regular undo suffices.

        Loading editor
    • Hey this may sound like a big deal to some people as I am about to ask a subjective question. What will happen to users that were given temporary staff recognition (i.e. temporaryily been made as an Admin)? They haven't really been formally opted to the position with the process that were used to nominating and obtaining the position. 

      Yes, its just a question, but as I have learned, the purpose of the new position being proposed, Wiki Moderators, is to help potential users practice or ,as per say, prove that they are worthy or deserving to be put into a later on higher postion, the Adminship.

      And I also have learned that in order to apply or be nominated for the Adminship position, you ought to have been a Wiki Moderator first. Does that mean that the temporary admins have to go back to becoming a Wiki Moderator first, just for formality's sake, since the rule has been established and there has not been any formal process on permanently giving the position to the temporary admins.

      Feel free to tell me that I i had missed something, or that the temporary admins have just been considered permanent to avoid questions like these. Thanks and i don't know if my question is really understandable as I wanted to not name users to make the question general. But yea. ~

        Loading editor
    • Who do we even have that's temporary right now anyway? Like one person? 

      /waits for Libby to answer the rest...

        Loading editor
    • Lol yea one person ;) but just wondering since the process of appointing the person didn't even follow anything that were stated on the new policies and procedures. Unless that person was made as a permanent admin before these new practice, (which I dont know when by the way if it ever happened since there was, again, no formal announcement for it), then my question is voided out.

        Loading editor
    • I'll send the question again... Who do we have that's temporary?

        Loading editor
    • Isnt Moon a temporary admin? 

        Loading editor
    • I suspect JD means Moonrise. However, he has done such a wonderful job as Admin, including covering a lot while others were not available, I would like to see the site consider leaving him as an admin. We could do a community vote, but the other prerequisites should not be mandated, IMO.

        Loading editor
    • sorry if this sounds rude, i have no intention of it being so but I am wonderinging if i am considered rollback or not? it says that if you get 2 users and a current rollback, you automatically get the position. (i think that means no voting is in place) Thanks, and sorry to change the topic a bit.

        Loading editor
    • Um, we need a bcrat for u to be promoted so ... not just yet, a letter to wikia will be sent though :)

        Loading editor
    • oh. **switches flip in head**

        Loading editor
    • Yup, I am indeed talking about Moonrise. However, I am generalizing my question to get general feedbacks also. I am just justifiying that there is a process that we are about to follow now while appraising for Adminship positions. As as a pre-requisite, you'd have to be a Wiki Moderator first, before being able to be considered for the Adminship position. 

      This is to address though that I am ot questioning Moonrise's works for the site, as they have been proven beneficial in a manner that supports the wiki's growth, or so people can see. I am just wondering if we should make considerations for situations like these, even with the newly made policy and such. ~

        Loading editor
    • Liber-On chat mod nominations, I understand there is a vouching process in support. Is there a process to express concerns, or would we just vote "no" when actual voting occurs?

        Loading editor
    • Dragon trip wrote:
      Liber-On chat mod nominations, I understand there is a vouching process in support. Is there a process to express concerns, or would we just vote "no" when actual voting occurs?

      I was wondering the same thing o.O

        Loading editor
    • Okay... One thing at a time. lol

      A)Moonrise is no longer Temporary. I made him permanent at the beggining of December when he was the only active admin.

      B)Bcrate or not, the Rollback position doesn't currently exist on this wiki(it was replaced by Custodians) so no promotions until I get an answer from Wikia(the request is sent already)

      C)No there isn't any objection process. That is meant to be expressed during the one week discussion prior to voting someone in.

        Loading editor
    • I would hope that we don't try to apply any rules to people retroactively. Anyone already a Chat Mod or Admin should absolutely stay in that role.

        Loading editor
    • I think providing a reason on you are supporting or opposing someone is quite fair. It prevents favoritism, popularity, or personal vendettas, or at least limits ...

        Loading editor
    • Pickle786™ wrote:
      I think providing a reason on you are supporting or opposing someone is quite fair. It prevents favoritism, popularity, or personal vendettas, or at least limits ...


      Guess we gotta wait till voting week though, lol.

        Loading editor
    • The vouching process is a little too chaotic at the moment to ask for specific vouching reason. It's already a lot of work scouring through it to find who qualifies(not to mention looking at edits in the case of rollbacks). But do remember the steps. Vouching, then 1 week of discussion, then one week of voting. That discussion is meant to talk about objections, ask the candidate how serious he/she is about this and show everyone who they are about to vote for.

        Loading editor


    • Liberkhaos wrote:
      No there isn't any objection process. That is meant to be expressed during the one week discussion prior to voting someone in.

      Does that mean a candidate is voted for only a week and then they get promoted/have to wait until they get another nomination? I was kind of confused about that. nvm, liber already answered that

      And also, how long will this whole voting process last? Until we have enought staff members? 

        Loading editor
    • I believe it goes from nomination with 3 vouches (at least 1 being staff), then a week to discuss the nomination and ask questions, and then a final yes/no vote.

        Loading editor
    • Discussion Week will be quite interesting, lol.

        Loading editor
    • lol, just not any more drama stuff; leave the dark ages in the past :L

        Loading editor
    • Pickle786™ wrote:
      lol, just not any more drama stuff; leave the dark ages in the past :L

      I suppose we will see.

        Loading editor
    • Emoticon_fingers_crossed.png hopes for the best Emoticon_fingers_crossed.png ~

        Loading editor
    • This process is implemented to last. We might someday close it if it turns to ridiculous but I'm hoping it'll stay under good control once the initial rush calms down.

        Loading editor
    • Dragon trip wrote:
      I suspect JD means Moonrise. However, he has done such a wonderful job as Admin, including covering a lot while others were not available, I would like to see the site consider leaving him as an admin. We could do a community vote, but the other prerequisites should not be mandated, IMO.

      I know Libby already settled this, but this was one of the first threads here c:

        Loading editor
    • wait, so do you need a current rollback to vouch for you or not? if not, will I get promoted by a bcrat because I got the three necessary vouches???

        Loading editor
    • You need a Rollback.

        Loading editor
    • Are we alode to "campain" for vouchers to convse people ud be a good candiate?

        Loading editor
    • No Wolfie. Campaining will be considered spamming.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks liber

        Loading editor
    • It has been one week now, so would all the people who did not get enough vouches be out or can we still vouch for them? 

        Loading editor
    • well, i think they have to wait 3 months to try again?

        Loading editor
    • ya.

        Loading editor
    • The week thing was that you are only allowed to nominate or vouch once per week.

        Loading editor
    • @tatz, no the specific forums say that persons that are nominates have to get 3 vouches in one week.

        Loading editor
    • There's two rules that deal with a week timespan.

        Loading editor
    • I see that Wiki Mods that have disscusions and voting, but chat mods only have disscusions and rolback has none at all.. :s

      and if you are vouched for by someone that has enough vouches, would that count as a vouch from a staff member? (Example: Wiz has enough vouches for rollback, but he's not promoted yet and he vouches for someone else for rollback.) Would that count as a vouch from a staff member?

        Loading editor
    • Hey, Poke, to your first point-Liber announced that for Wiki Mods, this time only, we are running the discussion and voting simultaneously because the change in the rights means we have only admins who can do comment editing, and we are short on admins. The Chat Mod voting should begin soon. And you are correct, Rollback has no discussion or voting-it's a simple tool and doesn't really need the same level of community involvement.

      Wiz is promoted to Rollback; he and BJ both had that added to their tools already.

        Loading editor
    • Nominations can be made HERE

      ths waz written on the main message^. is the " HERE" supposed 2 b a link cuz its not 4 me...

        Loading editor

    • Total dragonvale All wikis
      98 100% 689 100%
      (Main) 1 1.02% 98 14.22%
      Talk 6 6.12% 19 2.76%
      User 2 2.04% 66 9.58%
      User blog comment 14 14.29% 21 3.05%
      Thread 70 71.43% 446 64.73%
      Board Thread 5 5.1% 5 0.73%

      ths means i can do wht exactly?^

      (sorry)

        Loading editor
    • Kululu12 wrote:

      Dragon trip wrote:
      Liber-On chat mod nominations, I understand there is a vouching process in support. Is there a process to express concerns, or would we just vote "no" when actual voting occurs?

      I was wondering the same thing o.O

        Loading editor
    • Essiw
      Essiw removed this reply because:
      double post
      11:36, January 14, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • @Pokedragon: Someone who isn't staff yet doesn't count as a staff when vouching and won't until promoted(in Wiz's case, he vouched before becoming a rollback hence his vouch counts as a normal one).

      @Enchanted Dragon, your edits shows that you only have 1 mainspace edit. you need 50 of those to be able to apply as Rollback. Remember that they have to be QUALITY edits otherwise your nomination will be turned down. Also, here is not a link. It means that you are on the proper page.

      @Tatzel: Not sure if it was clear or not, but vouching has to be done withing a week. if not)like it's the case at the moment, the candidate must wait 3 months to re-apply.

      @Wikia contributor 98.210.16.144: I already explained this, but you can express your concerns during the one week discussion preceding the vote.

        Loading editor
    • @Liber, I wonder if the category namespace counts as quality edits too, I always counted them in the past when checking for quality edits. Maybe in the future when we convert the category pages to normal pages (since category pages should only list pages and not list information) it may not be worth to mention it, but right now I think it should.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah. Category can be taken into consideration. I see no problems with that.

        Loading editor
    • Hey, just noticed something when I edit. I can undo an edit from a long long time ago... I don't think I could always do this. What's going on? Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Not sure, and that's not really about nominating ...

        Loading editor
    • Srry, I though it was bcuz I though only rollbacks could do that.

        Loading editor
    • The Undo function and capacity to edit old versions of a page is something available to everyone at every time on every Wiki. That's the reason we keep telling people there is no reason to wait to be rollback to help around with editing and fighting vandalism. You cannot expect a rollback position if you do not even take the time to understand the tools you have as a regular user in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • No, JND, editing does not depend on the age of the item. The thing that only those with the "rollback" tool can do is revert multiple edits to a page with one click, rather than using "undo" and only reverting back to the last version.

      This part of the thread should be removed since it has no relationship to the topic. You can leave that type of question directly on an admin wall, or on the Feedback page

        Loading editor
    • Actually, you can remove as many edits as you want with the normal tool as well DT. Simply go to the latest proper version, click Edit and Publish. It's within everyone's reach! Rollback is nothing but a 0.2 seconds shortcut, no matter how far in the past you need to return.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, Liber that makes SO much sense. I can't believe I never figured that out!

        Loading editor
    • Ok, so DT and I believed the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up guys...

        Loading editor
    • Not quite, JND. I just didn't realize the easier way to replace an old page-I never had any concerns about the age of an edit. I knew I could edit and publish the older version, but never connected that it might make sense to do it.

      Be careful, though. If you restore an old version, you do effectively eliminate everything edited afterward. So you want to be sure that is your intention.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, Liber (or anyone).

      I know that currently, anyone who was in the role of Custodian is automatically eligible for Wiki Mod nomination without accounting for edit count or tenure in the Rollback position. Will this continue forever? For example, if one of us former Custodians decides to go for Wiki Mod six months from now, would the requirements be different, and that user would be subject to "Main Space edit counts"?

      I don't know if we have anyone in that category who does not already meet the edit count requirement, but it could apply to other things if we change something in the requirements. Basically, should we grandfather them in no matter when they apply, or do we want a time limit on that?

        Loading editor
    • I was discussing with KT, and she liked the proposal I made that added a new qualification for being eligible for the Wiki Mod and Admin positions:

      It said that (from now on) Wiki Mods will be required to have 200 mainspace edits and Administrators will be required to have 500 mainspace edits.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I know that we will have a community discussion before we make that change, but I think that's pretty restrictive-we have current admins who don't have 500. Editing matters, but it's not that important overall to these roles, in my opinion. We have a lot of users editing, and when we start to put these numbers on, we start seeing massive edits that don't necessarily add any value. Any user can edit; to me, we should assess other skills when promoting, unless the edits a staff member is doing are NOT quality edits.

      For example, we expect our Wiki Mods to do a lot of comment deleting. If that has no value (it doesn't count in edits) then we are not measuring skill in a current role as part of the requirement for the next role. Also, I think the best trait good admins bring to the wiki is the ability to answer questions and help users-again, these things do not increase the edit count. I would hate to see someone who shows leadership, fights spam, and understands game play be unable to become a Wiki Mod or Admin because they don't edit pages-often because others do it first.

      We did do a lot of discussion of the edit count requirements when we, as a community, set up these policies, and the community agreed with the current numbers. Unless we see what we are currently doing is not working, I don't think we should make a lot of changes right away.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, as you said this can all be discussed.

      I personally feel that anyone trying to become a Wiki Mod should not only be active but also have the qualifications for the lower position, Rollback, as well.

      I believe this because Rollback is the step before Wiki Mod, and even if you were a Custodian, you should need to have those qualifications because it is simply not fair to others and I believe a Wiki Mod should be able to get those fairly quickly, especially if they were consistent in using their extra tools as Custodian.

        Loading editor
    • I actually do not see why "Mainspace Edits" should be valued that much for a staff position like Wiki Moderator and Administrator. As per stated over the qualification list, we do not need to be strongly competitive when it comes to editing main pages. 

      Having 500 as the minimun requirement for Administrators? What did that prove? I dont see the point of basing your qualification over an edit count. This is just saying that some overly qualified (who are already Admins) like Liber and Chocobalt barely qualify for their titles since they only have about 500 mainspace edits for Liber and about 300 for Chocobalt.

      Being a Wiki mod or Administrator, you shouldnt only try to act like you are only responsible for editing ALOT on main pages; the works can be divided and users have more strengths in other aspects of becoming an admin  than just editing pages. 

      Some focus on editin/deleting comments. Some focus on building new ideas for the site. Some moderate the site for just. They do what they feel they are mostly effective for.

      In short, I don't agree with the "edit count" basis when it comes to being qualified for a staff position like Wiki Moderator and/or Administrator. ~

        Loading editor
    • The problem with all this is, we have no way of assessing someone's abilities outide of those main pages edits. We can't ask people who want to become Admin to just invent new templates for the wiki all the time, dragon information doesn't really change and even with a fairly large amount of game updates, the wiki requires little updates.

      But despite that issue, something else has to be remembered. We don't need to promote everyone that could be admin on the spot all the time. While it's no privileged club, it's not an open door policy either. ONe of the MOST IMPORTANT quality of an Admin is patience, and taking the time to do proper edits when they are needed is a great way to show that you can wait rather than troll the place to help yourself. If your main worry is that we fall Adminless again, remember that we have an emergency procedure in case that happens. For those of you who don't know what I'm talkin about, you can see it on the Staff and Staff's Procedure page

      Also, I would like to stress that we aren't expecting Wiki Mods to do a lot of comment deleting(nor editing them). We expect them to do so when it's absolutely necessary. The same can be said of blocking. It's something that has to be done at times when a troll shows up, but it's not a prequisite nor something for which a certain degree of performance is expected. Censorship has been an issue by the past and never again should it happen. We modify/delete comments only when it's an ABSOLUTE necessity. The main job of Wiki Mods and Admin is to help around and ensure everyone has a pleasant experience on the wiki. With that said maybe we could add a certain amount of Main page comment requirements, mentionning that those need to be comments meant to answer questions and help around.

        Loading editor
    • Like a measure of Community service?

      How much is the user participating in a helpful manner, maybe not exclusively but as an additional route to meeting certain criteria.

      Like how an applicant who is applying for a job sometimes uses education and work experience as supplementation when one aspect is less than what is desired by the employer.

      Or am I completely off the mark?

        Loading editor
    • No Nate. That's pretty much what I had in mind. It might be a bit hard to assess but I think it's a neat extra that could saves us a lot of poor extra editing(although we expect Rollbacks to know what a good edit is).

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I think it's hard to expect much in terms of specific "X"-space editing at this point. The wiki is already established and on a pretty consistent pace when it comes to updates.

      From all this, what I try to understand is that...

      We want to know users are being helpful to the community in a general manner and in a way that may be enhanced by the additional tools (and responsibility) of whichever role they're being nominated into.

      For those who are already in a position of increased responsibility, they should still display the general helpfulness for the community and that their additional tools haven't gone completely unused or used in a disruptive or malicious manner.

        Loading editor
    • The foremost more than the later. While I agree that it's bad to let admin tools in the hands of someone who doesn't use them, I don't want someone to go overzealous about it by fear of losing the job. Like editing, it's important to get the job done when there's job to be done, not making up stuff in an attempt to get recognition.

      With that said, the part about Admins having to stay helpful to the community is crucial. I do believe that is our reason to be before anything else.

        Loading editor
    • Perfectly said.

      On the other note, I also have another question about users becoming a staff member.

      Since the process of evaulating and allocating users into staff member position has become legitly fast pace, for reasons that we need them to help as fast as they can, shouldn't we also do the old-traditional-way of evaluating their capabilities with the tools they have just acquired?

      Say can we still do a 2-Week Testing/Trial just to see if the new members deserve their position (mainly applicable for Chat mods, Wiki mods,) ? ~

        Loading editor
    • How would they pass or fail?

        Loading editor
    • As for Wiki mods i cant really say anything to test this, since its a fairly new position, but as for Chat Mods, they can be tested by their

      Availability, Consistency of modding, Ability of Envoking the rules, Being Fair about situations, and the Capability of handling chat when it comes to chaotic times like the release of new dragons, etc.

      As part of the Chat Moderation team, we got tested if were able to handle having given the chat mod rights; i think its just fair to see if the newly recruited ones are really deserving of that position.

      This is just a mishap concern since i dont think any admin's have the time to see/monitor newly appointed members anyway. ~ 

        Loading editor
    • Back to the "edit count" as a measure of moving from Rollback to Wiki Mod. If we have a rule that you must have at least 50 edits before becoming Rollback, then those individuals have met the requirements to move to the next level. My concern with adding a higher edit count to move into the next role continues as originally stated. "Editing" is not a tool given to "higher level" roles, so increasing the amount of edits does not make sense to me.

      I still feel that we have to enhance our promotional processes to allow the Admin team to weigh in on candidacy of any applicant, based on their review and knowledge of the candidate's history within one role. I don't know how that can be controlled to ensure it never becomes "who I like or don't like"-but even that could matter. A person's ability to interact well with others in the role should be considered.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with DT, but I also cannot think of a way to keep the process objective.

        Loading editor
    • One thing to consider is that if the Admin group were to say no to a nominee, a designated admin must compose a comment that calls out the specific reasons with actual activities that supported it. For example, you might write on my nomination for Admin: "Although the community seems to support Dragon trip, the Admin team has determined that she is not an acceptable candidate because in spite of numerous conversations with the existing Admins, she continues to block anonymous users who say that the sky is pink, without demonstrating that the users are spamming this opinion. Reviewing her history of blocking, Dragon trip demonstrates that she blocks users only because she disagrees with their opinion."

      If there is consensus among admins with supporting facts, candor about the decision takes away the "secretive/popularity" element of allowing those we have selected as Admins to have greater input based on their knowledge.

        Loading editor
    • That would be great if the other admins would contribute. This transition stage we are in is very tough on the Wiki and its community. Even at this moment, we have people clamoring for emergency admin reinforcements.

        Loading editor
    • Yea, I like that, I was gonna suggest it at a later date but I wanted to see how the first few votings went.

        Loading editor
    • Well, as it is, you might get mine and Liber's opinion, and then the rest is kind of a toss up lol

        Loading editor
    • Yea, that's the problem: by the time all staff review or even see the potential promotion, it could be weeks later.

        Loading editor
    • I think that there would be an expectation that the process would be: nomination/vouchers and before a vote is begun, the admins available discuss the nominee and post a go/no go decision. If they are able to support the nomination, they then create the voting forum. Even if it's "weeks later" due to gaps in admin availability, if nominees understand the process they would just have to wait.

        Loading editor
    • For some reason, given the "antsy" precedent people have around here (scroll up to see some people asking about rollback when we didn't even have the position back yet) I'm not sure that would fly.

      I would gladly support that, however.

        Loading editor
    • Know what? If Admin candidates don't have the ability to be patient when admins have life events interrupt their ability to immediately jump to everything users want them to, I don't know that those candidates are the right people!

        Loading editor
    • I agree wholeheartedly.I'm sure the admins of the future are going to have a hard time being here as much as anyone would like them to, but that's just the truth of the matter.

      It would probably be difficult to work if all the admins were around all the time, anyway =D

        Loading editor
    • lol. Speaking of Admins having a life... Sorry but I won't be around as often for the time being... I'll do my best but I'm not making any promises. If the community asks me to move to the Limited Availability section I'll do so.

      So I read through the discussion and it seems like we have a huge issue finding a sure way to get people into admin based solely on meeting certain requirements. Having Admins pronounce themselves is not entirely bad, but it does have a few flaws(An Admin not knowing someone very well, absent admins giving uniformed opinions).

      How about we ask for 10 concrete proofs of someone's "good deeds"? Either a screenshot or a link to pertinent examples of how someone has been helpful to the community and how that person could benefit the wiki by getting extra tools?

        Loading editor
    • Whoops I fell off the map, waiting on the police report from the tiny accident I had, derp.

      Not really sure how I feel about the proof thing, maybe I'm just jaded but I could easily see that being a bunch of spam of.. like, the candidate answering a question and saying you're welcome, and while that's great and all, to me that's not enough to say anything other then "well so-and-so is great at answering questions I guess."

        Loading editor
    • I agree that it will lead to some spamming, but I'm more comfortable explaining to someone that simply answering a question on a page is nothing exceptional than atelling someone the edits he/she pushed on the wiki's mainspace are bad edit made with the selfish intention of getting a promotion AND have to patrol the pages constantly to ensure pages aren't abused for that purpose.

      But I also agree that it's not the best of ideas. I was trying to brainstorm something for a problem to which I can hardly see an absolute solution... The proof thing could also result in yet another "screenshot war" with people trying to say what they did good vs people trying to show what they did wrong... And we've seewhat happened with that by the past -_-'

      Increasing the amount of Main Space Edit will result in more spamming, stupid notes and fake grammar check followed by re-editing, and putting a comments requirement will lead to some people propagating false information from not understanding the game or the wiki to it's fullest.

      Voting the way we do it now makes it a sad popularity contest and opens the door to a lot of people who don't really deserve a place as staff member. We want to give tools to already helpful people so that they help some more, not to everyone who asks for it then hope they indeed prove useful...

      If anyone else has an idea, I'm opened to suggestions. =\

        Loading editor
    • I would really like to develop a process wherein all active admins review any nomination and come to consensus on whether the user demonstrates the maturity and leadership of each candidate, and then prepares a consolidated response. The discussion and voting will provide the community input, but the admins will have awareness of the "overall" performance of anyone. I know that if I have concerns about a user, I try to discuss it privately with the person, but I also share my concerns with admins. I think that all of you (admins) will have an awareness of concerns/issues that others may not. I would also say that it should require no less than 3 active admins to "weigh in"; candidates should certainly have the patience to wait a bit until that opportunity is there for the admins to communicate with each other.

        Loading editor
    • Well I hope that if we do that, people's concerns are taken seriously, because I have voiced my disagreements on candidates before only to be ignored and overturned, and that person ended up not being a good candidate for the position anyway. Maybe to me it just seems natural that in addition to what the community says, of course the admins will have a look themselves and determine whether a person makes a good candidate or not by reviewing everything they're presented with.

        Loading editor
    • It "seems natural" to me, as well, Tatz, and it removes some of the concerns that this is a "popularity" contest. I think if we document in the Nomination process that after feedback/voting, those with enough votes will be evaluated by the current admins-and honest feedback will be given to anyone who is not selected (so that the candidate can work on areas needing improvement) it would be good.

      I do think it should be admin consensus, which means that any one admin who has very strong feelings about a candidate can stop the process, so long as s/he can articulate and document the concerns.

        Loading editor
    • Since this is for questions, how long will nominations and users being promoted last?

        Loading editor
    • At this point, Bunny, there is no limit. We might have to reevaluate that at some point, but right now there is no plan to limit.

        Loading editor
    • Kay, thanks ^_^

        Loading editor
    • An Admin consensus doesn't bother me as per say,I think it's a great idea. But we held a community on this whole matter and changing something like that AFTER the vote seems a it unfair without putting it to vote again. I understand the risk of asking that,as a lot of people willsee it as a threat to their chances of being Admin, but we have to draw a line between the open door and the private club. A discussion after voting could work I think. But how do we proceed on implementing it?

        Loading editor
    • Liberkhaos wrote:
      as a lot of people willsee it as a threat to their chances of being Admin

      Lol? Who cares? If that person has demonstrated on the wiki that they are not suited for a position and evidence is brought up by the community, admins or both and it is adequately reviewed, then tough for them. I don't see why that should even be an issue. I know all the private stuff is what got us here in the first place, but at the same time we shouldn't have this... it's not a fear, per say, but everyone is so absolutely hesitant nowadays to use their position as admin to voice an opinion, for fear that the community will get upset that we're overstretching our powers or what have you. It's silly.

      If that's not what you were talking about, then elaboratea bit more and I'll come back and formulate another reply when I'm not on my way to bed, ha. But I don't understand what you mean by discussion after voting, voting for what? The candidate or a policy addendum, or something else entirely?

        Loading editor
    • LOL! Yeaaaaah... NO! It's not what I meant.  What I meant is that since we voted on the way to promote admins, changing the rules so drastically after the vote feels a bit like cheating to me. And I'm not sure people are reasonable enough to accept that clause for the reason you cited above.

        Loading editor
    • I do agree that if we want to propose a change to the policy, we should put that to a community vote for approval. We made it clear, in establishing initial policies, that we would need to reassess them after initial implementation. I think (from my perspective) that the initial assessment has shown that we are at risk of this all becoming merely a "popularity contest". We have had very low involvement of the community in the discussion/voting for Chat Mods and Wiki Admins, and I don't think we have set up the processes well for moving to Admin and would like to see us reassess them before we have a lot of users "eligible" for consideration.

        Loading editor
    • Are Celtic and Witch going to get their discussion for Chat Moderator yet? They have all necessary vouches, dont they?

        Loading editor
    • you need a wiki mod or an admin to vouch. not a mod :/

      so they are (sadly) booth unaccepted nominations :/

        Loading editor
    • I see..I thought it was chat moderator..

        Loading editor
    • Doesn't chat moderator count?

        Loading editor

    • The Nomination Thread:
      The candidate needs 3 other users to vouch for him/her within a week. One of these users must be Wiki Moderator/Administrator.

      they changed it on the top, but not near the bottom :/

        Loading editor
    • Guys, let it go. As much as I think that I would be a good chat mod, I am willing to wait until I can be nominated again. The worst of this is, however, the inconsistency in the rules. One section says one thing and another section says another. That, and the lack of an Admin saying something. I get that you all have lives outside the wiki and I have respected that by not bringing this up, but a simple "I'm sorry, your nomination is not valid for..." would have been nice. That would have been the considerate thing to do... There is no point to arguing or "fighting" over this. Do I think this decision is wrong and unfair due to the things I've already mentioned? Yes. Am I just in saying so? Yes. But if that is what the Admins have decided, then so be it. As unfair as I think this thing is, if it's one thing I've learned from my dad and life in general: Life isn't fair, it was never meant to be fair. As disappointed as I am over this, the things that make me more ticked off is the lack of communication and inconsistency in rulings rather than the fact that my nomination is invalid (as it would be by what Wiz has stated above).

      I just hope that the rulings get updated to where they match and don't confuse users. I love this wiki and the people on it and I just hope that this serves as a learning tool. That we, as a community, can learn from this to make this a better wiki. Now, I think I am finished :).

        Loading editor
    • If the rules changed (even if it was a typo fix) AFTER any open nominations, I would like to propose that this be eplained to Celtic and Witch, but I would add that they should fall under the rules in place when they were nominated or, at least, not have to wait any time to be re-nominated under the new rules.

      I also think we need to work through a better way to nominate individuals than a long thread. Perhaps each nomination could be a separate forum? It could be closed as soon as the user is shown either to meet or not meet the requirements.

        Loading editor
    • Dragon trip wrote:

      I also think we need to work through a better way to nominate individuals than a long thread. Perhaps each nomination could be a separate forum? It could be closed as soon as the user is shown either to meet or not meet the requirements.


      That would get awfully messy, as most people nominate without even seeing whether or not their nominee qualifies, so we would need to watch the Staff Forums a little closely.

        Loading editor
    • We should be watching things closely anyway. That's our job!

        Loading editor
    • I apologize for the Chat Mod/Wiki mod confusion. That is my fault. I made this before we acknowledged Wiki Mods as automatic Chat mods and forgot to make the change everywhere. I'll go fix the matter and I'm willing to vouch for Celtic outside the time delay if it's okay with everyone. We're about to open nominations for more Admins so that should help get more active people at once. I try to log in at least every 2-3 days but I rarely get more than 30 minutes at once so it's hard to keep everything in check during that time.

      Again, apologies for any problem that causes.

        Loading editor
    • I completely support moving to discussion/voting with Celtic Star. I would have vouched for her but thought she was already covered.

        Loading editor
    • I'll post the vouching there, ask if anyone has an objection and if no one opposes, I'll open the discussion.

        Loading editor
    • I moved this question from the Chat Mod nominations board and left a message for Argyos:


      I was confused on one of the requirements to be nominated. The first requirement is:

      • The candidate must have been active in chat for a full month. This requirement is meant to demonstrate that they have some knowledge of chat environments and policies.

      Is this full month the full month immediately prior to the candidates' nomination, or is it any full month that they have been active in chat? Also, what is defined as active? Is it once a day, once every couple or few days, or if neither of those, how often?

      Argyos Maestre

        Loading editor
    • Based on the description and discussions, this is intended to ensure people have an understanding of the chat environment and policy. So, it does not require that the month be the immediately preceding month. Active means regular participation in chat, so likely would be someone who is in chat 3-4 times a week at a minimum.

      It's definitely a guideline, rather than a rule with defined parameters. If a user is nominated who only came into chat for a minute, said hello and left, and did this for a month, I think it meets the requirement as written, but the community would not be likely to support the user a a mod.

      These are good questions, Argy. I know many of us feel that we need to work toward evaluting the overall staffing process now that we've had it in place for a while, and maybe we can make this a bit more specific. Do you have suggestions for what might be clearer? Personally, from what I've seen, one month seems short with some users (those who sign up, come to chat occasionally, and the day they reach a month they are nominated) but there are others who are very engaged and aware of policies who might be good mods and show it quickly. I lean more toward a requirement along the lines of "must have been a registered user for 2 months and receive a written recommendation from a Chat Mod who has been in the mod role at least 2 months".

      I find that our staffing process not requiring written "applications" of some sort with written input from existing staff makes it all feel much like a popularity contest!

        Loading editor
    • Dragon trip wrote:

      I find that our staffing process not requiring written "applications" of some sort with written input from existing staff makes it all feel much like a popularity contest!

      Totally agree with this statement and would really enjoy seeing something brought forth that coincides with the message this statement holds.

        Loading editor
    • JustinDaOne
      JustinDaOne removed this reply because:
      not appropriate
      00:09, March 19, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • Justin, I think proposals to the way we select staff probably needs to be separate at some point, using some input from this page. I would like to suggest we open a specific forum after discussing some draft proposals for community input, but I do know a few current staff members have some varied ideas on the overalll topic.

        Loading editor
    • ~=(iNate)=~ wrote:

      Dragon trip wrote:

      I find that our staffing process not requiring written "applications" of some sort with written input from existing staff makes it all feel much like a popularity contest!

      Totally agree with this statement and would really enjoy seeing something brought forth that coincides with the message this statement holds.

      Thanks for the input, Nate. I am on a biz trip so very limited in access for a few days but would like to draw up some proposals based on inputs in this page when I get home later this week.

        Loading editor
    • Coming from a user's standpoint, I agree that it seems almost popularity based for the voting right now. I like the concept of a recommendation or application of that sort would make it work better. However, I could see the possibility of some staff members picking favorites (not any current ones, but maybe someone in the future) who isn't entirely fit for the job. Maybe if the nominee needed, for example, one admin letter of recommendation and one letter of recommendation from someone in the staff position they will be possibly elected to? (In the case of someone going for admin, it would be 2 admin letters of recommendation) Beyond that, keep the same process. So, the candidate would be nominated, have to receive both their letters or applications or whatever, receive the necessary vouches, and then have their discussion and pursuant voting process. I feel that this would get rid of the popularity contest feel of the voting and it would also help eliminate the possibility of a staff member recommending a favorite user who may be unqualified for the position. Just my humble opinion though... What do you all think?

        Loading editor
    • Argy,I think we need to gather different ideas and make overall proposals for changes, but not necessarily in this page. Let's agree to keep this page for how the current process works and build a different forum for what might be proposed as modifications. I kind of started it down the wrong path, and apologize for the confusion. Do you feel your original question got answered for the current process?

        Loading editor
    • ~=(iNate)=~ wrote:

      Dragon trip wrote:

      I find that our staffing process not requiring written "applications" of some sort with written input from existing staff makes it all feel much like a popularity contest!

      Totally agree with this statement and would really enjoy seeing something brought forth that coincides with the message this statement holds.


      I'm afraid my limited activity level won't allow me to help much with the project, but I do think that would be a great idea. It coud allow people to put a bit of thought process behind the fact of becoming staff, the reason people want t do so and how they intend to serve the wiki upon being promoted(and maybe keep some lazy people from trying ;)

        Loading editor
    • Sory DT, didn't mean to make such a discussion on it here. Yes, I believe my question was answered to the extent I wanted it to. Thanks :)

        Loading editor
    • do you get demoted if you are inactive? (chat mod)

        Loading editor
    • Eventually, Player. That's covered here: http://dragonvale.wikia.com/wiki/DragonVale_Wiki:Staff_and_Staff%27s_Procedure

      Check the "Inactivity" section.

        Loading editor
    • Curious... where do you start... exactly? To be chat mod? I read everything, and I understood most of it... But where do you actually start? Do you have to ask someone? Or... other?

        Loading editor
    • http://dragonvale.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:819119

      This should be the nominations thread, it has the information you might be looking for.

        Loading editor
    • So do I just comment there?

        Loading editor
    • Zazara, you did it correctly. You have nominated yourself. As you can see from the policy, you will need to be vouched for in this role by other users, including a Chat Mod who knows you well enough from chat to write a short blurb so others can know you, and either an Admin or a Wiki Mod. In addition, a third non-staff user must vouch (the third can also be staff). Your nomination will stay open for a week or until you get the three vouchers.

      Don't hesitate to ask more questions; you can leave them here or on my wall (or any staff member's wall).

        Loading editor
    • Thankyou! :D

        Loading editor
    • Does uploading quality images consider to be a "quality edit"?

        Loading editor
    • If adding cash rates does (I think it does) then adding images should too.

        Loading editor
    • If it is an image being used for an article page (such as rendered dragons, decorations, etc.) then I personally would consider it as a quality edit since it is equally as important as the information in the form of text.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, okay. Thanks for answering my question, DL and Bane :)

        Loading editor
    • ...does editing Breeding for Profit count as quality? Otherwise I have around 5 quality edits... My park just isn't good enough, and I don't always have time to get on when something new comes.

        Loading editor
    • Eeyup. It does

        Loading editor
    • Who currently is in power, i.e.: Who are the admins, mods, and rollbacks?

        Loading editor
    • Hi Theother365, feel free to review the current staff members here: https://dragonvale.fandom.com/wiki/DragonVale_Wiki:Staff_and_Staff%27s_Procedure#Wiki%20Mods.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.