|For a list of administrators and moderators of the Fallout Wiki, see Fallout Wiki:Administrators and moderators.|
|This page contains Nukapedia's administration policy. It describes rules for article management, contributor moderation, block and ban appeals, and expectations established for administrators and moderators.|
Editors whose contributions are disruptive to the site or who fail to behave appropriately towards other contributors may be blocked. The following are guidelines for general cases. Blocks and their duration are at the discretion of Nukapedia's administrators. A non-exhaustive list of reasons and suggested durations follow below. Bans from Discord follow an independent policy and current ban log is maintained here.
Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans
Also known as a SaintPain appeal, the policy grants the opportunity for any user who has been permanently blocked or banned from the wiki or its official Discord server to request it lifted after 12 months have passed from their last infraction of the rules, including the use of multiple accounts and soliciting users to edit by proxy.
Rights holder activity policy
Similar to the requirements for qualifying for additional tools on Nukapedia, staff members must maintain those activities after tools are granted. Users who are inactive do not necessitate tools to serve the wiki or its chat functionality by the very nature of inactivity, and the process for updating user rights on Nukapedia and its Discord are dictated by the following. Does not cover rights removed due to resignation or as a result of conduct policy proceedings.
Administration conduct policy
If an administrator is involved in an editing dispute, they should not use admin abilities or status to solve it. Ask another user or admin to mediate.
Administrators are allowed to undo each other's administrative actions. However, it is expected that the one who reverts an action explains the reason for the revert. In addition, if the admin whose action was undone disagrees with the revert, they should contact the reverter and discuss instead of simply reverting the revert. If consensus cannot be reached, a third admin should be asked to mediate. In the case of staff member resignation, rights cannot be given back unilaterally, resignation is permanent.
Extra-rights holders that violate normal user conduct policies are subject to the established progressive discipline for user conduct violations already in place. Extra-rights holders that abuse those extra rights are subject to progressive discipline following the established norms:
- First offense: 1-week removal of rights
- Second offense: 1-month removal of rights
- Third offense: permanent removal of rights
Extra-rights abuse shall be defined as the misuse of:
- Site-block or chat-ban tools.
- Page protection or page deletion tools.
- MediaWiki or site features access.
- Any other misuse of tools or position that negatively reflects on Nukapedia's reputation or standing.
In case of gross abuse of rights, discretion allows for bypassing established progressive discipline up to and including a user-rights removal request.
In the event of a dispute over misuse of rights, a bureaucrat shall appoint a board of three neutral administrators to determine if there is an initial cause to investigate. The Investigating parties are expected to gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible. If it is found that there has been a misuse of rights, they will recommend action based on established guidelines. Either party may appeal the board's finding. In the event of an appeal, all sitting bureaucrats will determine the final disposition of the complaint. The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request at any time during this process.
Votes of no confidence may be called in a forum by the community at any time. Votes of no confidence are non-binding and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines. A minimum of three petitioners must bring forth the vote of no confidence. Like any user-rights request, bureaucrats will adjudicate the results of votes of no confidence.
In the event a user-rights removal request is found warranted by the rights abuse process, a forum shall be called. User-rights removal requests are binding and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines.
All user-rights removal requests must present evidence of abuse of rights. Votes of no confidence must provide the rationale behind the lack of confidence. The accused will be afforded the opportunity to rebut in a timely fashion before the voting period commences. A period of three days minimum is recommended for the accused to rebut charges, and an extension may be granted by a bureaucrat if warranted. The accused may waive this right at any time.