Forum:Administrative Requests

This forum exists for the purpose of requesting assistance from an administrator. Leave a message here if you:
 * Need a user/IP to be blocked due to vandalism or severe disruption.
 * Need a spam page to be speedy deleted.
 * Need a page to be protected.

All administrators should have this page in their watchlists.

Blocking Requests
'When reporting users, please use Template:Block-request. The fields to be filled are. It is recommended you read the template documentation first.'

Request Kickban from Chat
If no admin or chat moderator is present on Chat, you can request that a user be kickbanned from Chat here or else alert an admin directly.

Move Requests
Tōdō Izaemon --> Izaemon Tōdō - See associated talk page; current name does not reflect Western naming order. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  00:35, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Szayel Aporro Granz → Szayelaporro Granz Shawlong Kūfang → Shawlong Koufang These two were part of the MASKED Project, but were left in the dust. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  14:26, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

General Discussion
I think it is time we removed statuses from all pages. They are too much of a hassle and lead to edit wars and conflicts. If someone wants to know the status of a character, they can read the article.--


 * I've never found statuses to be worthwhile and would not object to them being removed if that is what is decided. They are a source of unneeded controversy that distracts from the real work that needs to be done around here. At best the rows (and there will always be disagreements over it due to many "deaths" ambiguous and people being immature) do not encourage editing and at worst put people off, which is obviously bad for the wiki. 14:30, January 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally don't mind them, it's quick and easy for a person to find out if the character is alive or dead!! I know that's what I search for on a lot of Wiki so I can see why Salubri likes them!! SunXia   (Chat)  14:37, January 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ive already removed them from the specific character boxes a while back. But if a character is dead they are dead regardless of whatever fanboy or girl wants to believe and im getting kind of tired of having to feel as though we need to justify that for every person on bleach asylum or random user that has a problem with it. The point being where they currently are at is fine. They are on pages that dont see much in the way of editing and therefore if disturbed can be locked with no real issue because they are not popularly worked on pages. This is the same issue as people complaining about the background color or that we have too many policies to allow them to put opinions out of universe wording and whatever else they want onto article pages. Every other wiki with characters have similar deceased posting on characters dead and gone and dont have such issue. My general take is if the character is dead, we state that and deal with whoever we have to when they decide to be ignorant about it just as we handle anyone else who vandalizes the site. Why should we be limited because we dont do what a small group of people who dont even care about the site thinks. Plain and simple they wanna edit war they get blocked, they want conflict they get blocked. Also on the note it seems we have become so scared at stating death of character that we give the most vague explanation of death. Look at Gin's page and youll see it or anyone else who has recently died. Also to state they arent worthwhile wouldnt be accurate by that notion we shouldnt have infoboxes talking about weight and height, affiliations and whatnot. The characters status is just as much apart of the article as anything else we put in it. Immature people always are gonna have a problem, from the constant issue with trivia, hair color, eye color, and whatever else. DBZ wiki seems to be engaging in a one sided war with us cause the admin over there doesnt like Godisme, do we get rid of him to make it easier on us. Do we get rid of are policies to make it easier on us. If real editors wanna edit they arent discouraged from editing by any of this, realistically not anytime that i can remember have we had anyone with original issue with any of this ever want to be an active and productive member of this site. --Salubri (Talk)  16:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC)