Thread:Fangirl111/@comment-36574594-20180820171546/@comment-5952365-20180821010731

I disagree, most Wikis I've encountered allow short pages as long as they have a stub template and everyone knows the page in question can and will have more added onto it later, in the near or distant future. This usually occurs when there aren't many active Users and people don't have the time to review and add on to the page, or when the Wiki is incomplete due to something like a hiatus. The Iron Lyons ironically falls perfectly into that last category. Unless it's a "big" Wiki with many, many people, requiring pages to be complete, this has never been an issue on any Wiki I've seen that I can recall atm. Stub templates are meant for small pages, you know. Spam would have been if the page was useless and/or unnecessary, not because the page is small. Again, that's a stub. If the page is on topic and useful, no matter how small, it is important and not spam. Now, that being said, usually if a Wiki has too many small pages, they will take the ones in common and add them all onto one page under different headers. For example, there may be 8 very short pages focusing on minor characters. Usually an Admin would then go and place all the info on each character onto one page (say, "List of Minor Characters") with each header being the character's name or physical description if they were never given a name, and then deleting the old, now empty, 8 pages. Another example would be if you're an Admin on a Wiki about specific movies, lets say in this example, animated ones. You might want to have movies with all of their sequels together on one page, so instead of having 3 pages that say, "The Lion King", "The Lion King 2:Simba's Pride" and "The Lion King 1 1/2", you would have "The Lion King" with the Headers being "The Lion King", "The Lion King 2:Simba's Pride" and "The Lion King 1 1/2". I don't believe I've ever seen a Wiki with a word limit, excluding writing ones, like the Creepypasta Wiki, I think they might.

So, unless the page is actual and/or obvious spam (how I described above), and not just short and/or incomplete, aka a stub, then you should be prepared to explain why you believe they are spam. The same goes for adding a candidate for deletion category. That category is specifically meant for discussion, so unless you have a reason that is agreed upon by the community and Admins, it should not be deleted. It's fine if you were "merely putting them in", but if you were to become Admin and would have deleted them without a discussion then that would have been unfair, especially if the Admins were to have returned, either quickly or in the future, and disagreed.

Thank you for giving examples of what pages you would have added, I think that would also prove to Werebereus that you did read the books, if you did. This is why I would vouch for the block to be lifted and a second chance to be given. If you don't plan to harm the Wiki and have useful information to add, then I believe you and Werebereus should have a discussion and lift the block. You're right, it was immature and looks suspicious, but I'm not Were so I don't know how he truly felt or what his actual intentions were. That's why having a discussion and lifting the block would also be a good idea, it would show understanding of this mistake and good faith in new editors joining. Were should have shown good faith in the first place, but I can also understand how he would mistaken this for a simple vandal attack, especially if that Wiki has had any sudden vandal attacks in the past, but I do not know if they have.

You would of been in your rights to adopt after 2 months of Admin inactivity. The year guideline is for removing old rights, not just adopting. If the community would have been active after those 2 months or even year, but not the Admins, then you still could have adopted, but you would have had to have a blog post or discussion/forum thread for the community to vote on. I understand what Werebereus was thinking with keeping an eye on the Wiki but not editing it, in my opinion that's fine as long as he has a notice somewhere, like his profile, that he is still active. I don't know if he does, but it's not a Wikia/FANDOM Staff requirement, just my personal way of going about that kind of situation. Besides, I think he should have welcomed you and/or any new Users himself when you first joined, to show he's active.

I actually already know some of Werebereus's past on The Lion King Wiki, I didn't voice my opinion when the last few sets of blocks were given, but I still saw it as I was involved with the same User he was. I personally think Honeyfur was wrong with multiple things, however, their feud started long before I joined Wikia/FANDOM and I do not have the full story to judge them. Neither do you. I met Honeyfur in 2013 back when her avatar was still dolphins swimming, I think she's a good, fair Admin and I respect her and her judgments, not only as an Admin, but also as a User with a LOT experience on this website. The same goes for Werebereus, they both joined in 2009 and I hold a VERY high respect for both of them, especially for their knowledge and experience. Btw, this is the proper link for The Lion King Wiki:

https://lionking.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AWerebereus&type=block

Again, I don't know the full story and I have a lot of respect for his experience of 9 and a half years of editing, so I don't have an opinion to give about that. Where did he say or imply he was a paragon of Adminship, though?

So again, I believe you should be unblocked and you two talk. I do not like that or think it should be acceptable that he said anyone was not welcome and I agree with you that he shouldn't tell Users they are not allowed, but again, I can see why he made this mistake, instead of assuming good faith. He is allowed to say that, as an Admin, but I think it was done far too soon and with no good faith beforehand. The message he left to tell you you were blocked was also not the best choice of words, tone or behavior.

Okay. I know how Global bans work, but unless they tell you why they were banned, the Staff will not. However, you didn't "merely tell him how to create a blog post", you specifically gave him the title and body of it, no less than twice.

Now, Werebereus was not the only one to not assume good faith, you also didn't. The goal of becoming an Admin isn't to "replace" the old ones, it's to help the Wiki and join the current Admins, or past Admins if they return. That being said, only the Staff can remove Bureaucrat rights, so even if you were to become a Crat and Admin, you would have needed the Staff to remove his rights, you would not have been able to do it yourself, so you wouldn't have been able to "replace" him by removing his rights once given Adminship. Furthermore, saying you could have "replaced" him makes you sound power hungry and a bit desperate.

Bringing up old disagreements and blocks also doesn't look good for either of you, not just Werebereus. It certainly doesn't look like good faith on your side, especially when you don't know the full story. Were has been very good with this, would you be if he had brought up links to your own past disputes and blocks? And again, telling someone exactly what to write for you on a Wiki you were blocked on doesn't make yourself look better, either.

You both handled this in a bad way, but I do believe there is potential and room for improvement if you two have a fair and reasonable discussion.