The admin blocks people too harshly and undos almost every good edit.
If waiting and changing internet connections still don't do the trick, then try registering a different username.
With regards to age, you must be 16 if you are in the EEA (except the UK) or California. Otherwise, you must be 13.
Isn't it also 13 in California?
The admin blocks people too harshly and undos almost every good edit.
Love Robin wrote: There *is* a tool designed to lockdown an entire wiki for varied periods of time UPTO 12 hours. It is used by Staff, including Support, and VSTF for instances of serious vandalism to give them a chance to repair a wiki in peace.
Since you're talking about a Staff Support team coming to your wiki, they'll probably have the tool and can/might use it if they feel the need.
I never knew that, thanks
Sent them an e-mail, thanks. Hopefully it'll bring that son of a b**** down.
As a heads-up, I know it's prohibited by Terms of Use and Fandom staff to protect all pages. The whole point of having a Wiki is to open editing to anyone, but for this case, I need technical support for repairs because something is not functioning as it is suppose to.
I don't think it's a violation. I have a good justification. I'll unprotect it when I get the signal from those guys. It's like a store, they have to (temporarily) close to the public for reconstruction/remodeling.
I have a Wiki where I tried adding links to a foreign language wiki and most of them don't work. I contacted technical support and they said they'll be on their way to check the problem and try to resolve it. I need to protect all pages for only 1 day so those guys can do their job without interruption. As soon as the problem gets fixed, I'll unprotect all pages, except for the policies page which is generally set to permanent protection.
You can report him via Special:Contact. I do not think the perm block like that is acceptable. Protecting the whole wiki is certainly not acceptable either, and a violation of the Terms of Use.
Considering how he is the only active bureaucrat, does the Wiki have to vote on it? Most people aren't active there, he's the only one who can block people.
There's no other bureaucrats or admins on this particular Wiki. He's the only active bureaucrat. He undid my edit so I went to the talk page to challenge his revert. He deleted the talk page to explain his viewpoint and gave me a warning. Isn't that what you're suppose to do? If an admins undos your edit then you go to the talk page and try to invite others to see what they think. This guy just straight up deleted my proposed talk page section and warned me. I told him he is clearly unfit to be a bureaucrat, and blocked me for "irritating me - you serve no purpose". I'm blocked until 2022. I happen to be an admin for three Wiki's, I know the procedures when dealing with edit warring and explaining viewpoints on talk pages, this guy is using his tools to delete and block innocent users.
UPDATE: He just blocked me permanently and left me a link to where Eric Cartman says fuck you.
TortoiseCat5 wrote: In addition, The main reason for the COPPA law is because underaged users are more likely to give out private information. If they keep their age private, they should be smart enough to keep everything else private as well... but if they give out their age, it shows they are more likely to give out even more private info, and they get disabled.
But the majority of them don’t reveal their age. Just because they’re kids doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Some know a way around things and in this particular case it’s COPPA.
Yeah, but there are some laws that most people break, like speeding.
RedIgnite wrote: ...
IMO, a lot of users take COPPA seriously, but they shouldn't and I'll explain why. ...
I know, but I'm just saying that the law is a huge failure, it's garbage. The company can't know if the user is indeed under 13, they need proof that he or she is underage but it's impossible to correctly guess their age unless the kid decides to take the cat out of the bag and reveal their actual age.
You can contact Fandom staff, and report them to local admins so they'll block them.
IMO, a lot of users take COPPA seriously, but they shouldn't and I'll explain why. Many 10 to 12 year olds use social media, even though they're not legally supposed to (I know their parents can give the company consent by sending a parental consent form but who the hell would do that?)
I also bent the rules back in the 2000s (When COPPA was created - in 2000). I created a Wikia account (Not this one, a former account that I disabled because the username makes me cringe) when I was only 11 years of age, in 2008. That COPPA law didn't stop me, so its goal is a tremendous failure. Because that was a little more than a decade ago, I got away with it and nothing happened.
Let's say you got banned on Battlefield Wiki for arguing with an admin. This is only an example, I'm not blocked on any Wiki.
Can The Sims Wiki also block you indefinitely for causing trouble with Battlefield Wiki even though you never caused trouble on The Sims Wiki?
Let’s say I blocked a user indefinitely for three strikes on The Sims Wiki (I’m not an admin over there but I’m giving an example) but can I also apply the block over to Battlefield Wiki? They’re both games made under the same company.
Abuse Filter blocked you, which is a program (Or bot if you prefer, but it's technically not a bot) that blocks you if it easily detects vandalism in your edits.
There is a major difference between Good-Faith Edits and you're gay lol edits. Abuse Filter knows when you attempted to vandalize an article, and if it does determine you're a vandal, in my Wiki, it blocks you indefinitely.
Bitch Fierce wrote:
Tupka217 wrote: Yes, they can. And they will. And they might do something to you in return.
They can't be blocked by a local administrator.
We can, but we’re not allowed to block anyone who didn’t violate policy.