Space in page[]
There is an unnecessary space above the "Editors" header. Please remove it. Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 04:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I came to say[]
I do not agree and will not adhere to the rules. This had been a good idea 5 years ago, now it's too late. You can go f* yourselves! *walks away forever from this thread* Theh5 12:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. We'll keep this in mind when an appeal from one of your blocks comes in. --MisterWoodhouse (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A Rule Idea I Should Recommend[]
On the subject of changes within wikis, and here in particular, it must be realized that it is common sense that changes that would be based on personal opinions, should not be tolerated, and must not be allowed. Because they don't always make a beneficial difference, whereas changes based on factual issues, like for example, positive changes to behavioral conduct as moderators, will disallow those of abusing their position. But on the other hand, opinionated changes, like getting rid of the allowance of something great and innovating that only some people don't like, will not be tolerated. ChocolateElemental (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Such a policy at a global level would completely isolate fanon content and, as such, we won't be making it. --MisterWoodhouse (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
this will be the end of FANDOM Webside[]
all users will be blocked and no one will edit them anymore
- Holding admins accountable for the fairness of their blocks will result in all users getting blocked? I don't see the logical connection there, unsigned user. --MisterWoodhouse (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Did yall even look at the date this is going to start on? 
Wingman1 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Ukrainian help[]
This help page is protected from editing by ordinary users, so can you post interwikis on this page? DDPAT talk 14:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done! :)
- --Daeron del Doriath (contattami)
14:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Phrase "and all wikis are required to follow it"[]
The "and all wikis are required to follow it" sentence on the top of the page throws me off. What about people who run their wiki basically on their own, with maybe one or two other editors per month? I wouldn't even know where to start for a "how users may become admins or other roles" guideline. Some people aren't even Bureaucrats but simple sysadmins who can't give out admin access. I'd also be very careful with the autopatrol role, even experienced editors make mistakes (way too common IMO, I'm of course no different, but I try my best), so I'm not a fan of giving it to a lot of people. Also, how would admins who did not read this blog post/policy change know anything about changes they need to make? I can implement best practice guidelines for editing, and maybe for blocking, but that "Pathway to adminship" paragraph throws me completely off. I'm also not working full time on the wiki as I have other responsibilities obviously. With maybe 100 edits not by me in the last 90 days (which is not a lot, I'm talking edits, so minor spelling mistakes, category creation, talk pages, personal pages, etc. When talking about page creations by others in the main namespace I'm at 17 in the last 90 days) I don't think I have enough experience to implement a blocking policy, given that I had to purge vandalism only two times in half a year. I know the technical aspect of being a wiki admin very well, but I still have big knowledge holes on the best practice side of things due to lacking experience with other editors.
Tl;dr: I'm kinda overwhelmed by the change and don't really know how to implement some of these guidelines as an admin of a small wiki. Lenni (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The Point[]
I've recently had a run in with an admin who was blantantly flouting these rules, and one time before that as well (although that situation wasn't as clear). In both instances, even when I provided one-to-one evidence of the infractions themselves and which rules they broke and reported it, nothing appears to be happening. Hell, the Wikirep tried to use an incident from over a year ago to dismiss my concerns and claimed the wiki staff was "not at fault", indicating flawed or biased judgement (probably biased). Yes, I do have a history of poor run ins with admins (some of those were my fault, but some won't. When you have no oversight at all on your wikias and your response to people's problems is to shrug your shoulders, of course that happens). That doesn't suddenly mean this admin didn't do what he did and the only reason my past was brought up (for the first time in a long exchange mind you), is because this wikirep could no longer defend or excuse his admin buddy. He was caught dead to rights, the incident was cut and dry, the case open and close. So far, it's been radio silence from the community staff though (approaching 72 hours. Maybe I'm complaining too early-- we'll see). Despite this big, grand gesture about change, it looks like nothing really has, which is disappointing but not surprising. Xhosayande (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Loophole in policy[]
"Only send in a support ticket via ZenDesk about a block if you have made a good faith effort to discuss your block with the admins (or can’t) and the block is longer than 2 weeks.". One can exploit a loophole by blocking for 335 hours and immediately after 335 hours block again. Renamed user gibberish (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would imagine that any time that was tried the blocked person would include that information in their message to staff. And Staff wouldn't refuse to look into a case because of that sort of technicality. We'd likely put it as a point against the admin. -- Sannse (Discussions | wall) 19:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)