User blog comment:MisterWoodhouse/Creating new wikis on the Unified Community Platform/@comment-5065259-20200303222153

Just some thoughts...

option 3 - staff will need to strongly consider why the existing wiki is refusing to cover the "missing medium" option 5 - a better approach might be to consider having the user adopt the inactive/dead wiki instead of creating from scratch and terminating the old since this impacts SEO

if a flagged wiki created is closed, will staff provide reasoning to the creating user's messagewall?

perhaps defining what is considered a "bad admin" might be helpful to really dive into the root cause regarding "bad faith administration" There are two categories: 1. Dictator 2. ineffective: the wiki is in such poor condition and the admin(s) refuse assistance from good faith editors to improve the condition of the wiki as if the admin "owns" the wiki. poor condition means that the wiki content is near unusable to anyone who wants actual information. there's no need to create a new wiki and destroy the existing, rather what needs to happen is that there needs to be a change in leadership so that the wiki can actually be rebuilt.

Admins or wiki communities that refuse new features are not "bad admins" or "bad communities". Refusing to accept new poorly created features should not result in staff initiated punishment (demotions or blocks) neither should staff threaten exclusive priviledges (membership in certain programs) to force acceptance, this is what caused many large wiki communities to leave in recent years.

editors that hurt the franchise of a wiki by demonizing the franchise or even calling for "death" of characters (tv, movies/film)/equivalent is unacceptable. not only does this damage relation between franchise and fan communities, it severely damages the reputation of the franchise.

editors who are mindlessly doing this will very likely ignore warnings, a block is justified. This is not considered actions of "bad admins", this is protecting the wiki from harm.

editors who deliberately ignore warnings over uncivil behavior or continued edit warring and later get blocked should not be eligible to call for demotion. plagiarism should not be tolerated even if competing with an external wiki (different domain)

staff supervised demotion discussions should focus on 3 main issues: 1. is there a valid reason for the issued block based on recent activity? steps should be taken if cross wiki disruption occurs 2. is there a power struggle occuring aka civil war between bureaucrats/admins/content moderators? 3. should be based on thoughts of the active editor community, a minimum edit count and account age should be enforced User(s) that interfere with a staff supervised demotion in any way (sockpuppets - flooding new accounts, edit warring, uncivil behavior) should invalidate the entire thing especially if the blocked user is responsible. malicious invalid demotions that drag for long periods of time are harmful to the wiki community, demanding demotion over a valid block is laughable