Since Fandom forced the merger and archival of their wikis, what are the limitations of taking the data from the archived fandom Zeldapedia and moving it to the merged Gamepedia site? As long as credit is given to it's original source being the fandom Zeldapedia -- does that satisfy the Creative Commons demands of Fandom or not? Кэне_零三 12:05, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
Kenji 03 wrote: Since Fandom forced the merger and archival of their wikis, what are the limitations of taking the data from the archived fandom Zeldapedia and moving it to the merged Gamepedia site? As long as credit is given to it's original source being the fandom Zeldapedia -- does that satisfy the Creative Commons demands of Fandom or not? Кэне_零三 12:05, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
The merger between Zeldapedia and Zelda Wiki was not forced - it was a mutual decision of both communities for Zeldapedia to be archived and its community to move to Zelda Wiki.
Part of that decision also affects policies. Zelda Wiki's policies remained unchanged after the merge, and the Zeldapedia community chose to follow ZW's policies instead of trying to implement a new, combined one.
Haya. Gamepedia and FANDOM have been merged now for over a year, so yes, they are the same entity. As for presenting differently, this will change given time, especially as FANDOM continues to upgrade UCP.
Yes, although people tend to work either on the Fandom side or the Gamedpedia side, we are part of the same company now. So your discussion on Gamepedia would apply to Fandom too - especially as this is about a merge between the two wikis.
More specifically, their account has to be disabled. Global blocks can be revoked more easily and still allow tracking the globally blocked users if they are logged into their account while browsing Wikia (which COPPA prohibits) whereas disabled accounts cannot be logged into.
Should also probably be noted that if users don't publicly admit they are underage, Wikia does not need to disable their accounts.
I noticed that you changed my user rights from bureaucrat and administrator to nothing on the Donald.no Wiki.
As you know, two other bureaucrats, and a user, did not want me to be a bureaucrat or administrator on the wiki for behaviour I pursued on another website (which does not exist anymore) around seven years ago, which I discussed with the users in question. I didn’t abuse my bureaucrat or administrator rights and tried to improve the wiki, both by myself and with the help of a newly-created bot, since I care about the wiki.
I tried to find guidelines or rules related to the removal of existing bureaucrats, but I couldn’t find any, so I suppose that there aren’t any, but do Fandom staff members usually demote bureaucrats based on votes of other users and bureaucrats (one of whom was promoted to a bureaucrat and administrator by the only bureaucrat and administrator other than me after I adopted the wiki)?
I’ve noticed forum threads in the past where users have complained about bureaucrats who abuse their user rights, and I understand that Fandom intervention is necessary in those scenarios, but since I adopted the wiki in July 2016 (almost exactly two years ago), I have done nothing but improve the wiki by editing pages, creating pages, creating templates, creating a bot and requesting it to be marked as such, changing the dialect of the wiki by contacting Fandom stupport, updating the features of the wiki (such as requesting the Discussions feature from Fandom support), and more.
I adopted the wiki during a time when it was abandoned. No one, except a vandal whose revisions I had no choice but to continuously revert as a regular user, had edited the wiki in a long time. The most recent edit by a bureaucrat or administrator was made four and a half months ago at the time. The wiki was in a bad state, and still is (albeit not as bad), which I wanted to ameliorate.
I’m just a bit concerned that my rights were suddenly removed since I didn’t abuse any of my bureaucrat or administrator rights. A user, who was made a bureaucrat and administrator after I joined the wiki (as far as I can remember), decided almost two years after I adopted the wiki that he did not want me to have these user rights on the wiki, despite the many improvements that I had made to the wiki, merely because I had recently started actively editing the wiki again. As mentioned, I had already been a bureaucrat and administrator on the wiki for nearly two years, with almost no one, not even the only other bureaucrat and administrator, editing the wiki, while I was taking a break from editing. Once I resumed and started to improve the wiki and contacted the fellow users of one of the websites that the wiki is about and asking for help to improve the wiki, the user Galaniitoluodda decided that I should not be an administrator and bureaucrat because of past disagreemeents.
I apologize for the lengthy message, but I am a bit confused. Also, I realize that my user rights were removed six days ago. I have been busy with other things and have been unable to contribute to wikis for the past few days and haven’t read my e-mail, so I also apologize for the delayed response.
It doesn't seem like Donald.no wiki is very active. That being said, it appears the active community is very small, and thus just a few requests for demotion (whether they be held on a public vote, or requested via email, the latter in special cases), are sufficient enough to warrant a demotion for any reason.