Fallout Wiki
Fallout Wiki
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 the blocking of users, page deletion and protection as well as other rules for the wiki's administrators and moderators.
  • Policies set general rules for the wiki's administration and its content.
  • Any registered editor is free to edit this page to improve its readability as long as the essence of the article remains unchanged.
  • If you would like to suggest content changes or propose a new policy or guideline, please use the wiki discussion forum.
  • See the policies and guidelines page for an overview of this wiki's policies and guidelines.



Editors whose contributions are clearly disruptive to the site or who fail to behave appropriately towards other contributors may be blocked. The possible reasons for blocking include (but are not limited to):

  • Vandalism
  • Personal attacks or threats towards other editors
  • Violating site policies
  • Spamming links to external sites
  • Abusing multiple accounts
  • Creating an account with an unacceptable username
  • Making unnecessary edits to pages in order to gain wiki achievements
  • Starting or being involved in user conflicts


Usually, the block duration is:

  • Three days for the first offense
  • One week for the second offense
  • One month for the third offense
  • Any additional offenses may result in a permanent ban (only for registered users).

These are just guidelines for usual cases. Blocks and their duration are generally up to the discretion of Nukapedia's administrators.

Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans

(AKA the "SaintPain" rule)

Any user who has been permanently banned from the wiki or the chat may request the ban to be lifted after 12 months has passed from their last infraction of the rules (this includes multiple accounts).

  • This request should be made to a Bureaucrat - ideally on their talk page. Where this is not possible, it should be made on the user's own talk page. Where both of these options are not possible, or no response is received after a timely period has passed, such an incident should be relayed via a bureaucrat's wall on Community Central.
  • When evaluating received requests, the Bureaucrat in question is not obliged to assume good faith, where they believe there is a reason for not extending such a courtesy, but should still be prepared to listen with an open and fair mind.
  • The Bureaucrat in charge of reviewing a permanent ban may wish to examine the following when evaluating the request (this list is non exhaustive):
    • The events that lead to the final ban
    • Any attempts to circumvent the ban
    • The length of time that has passed
    • Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban (Issues in personal life, etc).
    • The users good acts prior to the ban
    • Any personal growth the user has done since the ban
    • Their behavior on other Wikia wikis
  • If the Bureaucrat believes that clemency is warranted, they may start a forum thread discussing the user's status. This thread should first be opened as a discussion for at least a week. If there is no objection, the ban may be lifted at this time; if there is an objection, the result should go to a community poll.
    • The Bureaucrat may temporarily lift wiki bans at their discretion to allow for the user to argue their own case. The user, however, is expected not to edit any other pages other than their own talk page (or talk pages to those who have posted on theirs), and the discussion page itself; any messages should relate to their own hearing only. Any breach of this may result in the discussion immediately being closed (and resolved in the negative) at the Bureaucrat's discretion.
  • Bans are only to be reviewed once.
  • The user may immediately be permanently banned if they are involved in all but the most trivial offenses.
  • Any special rights held by the user will not be reapplied.


  • Pages which do not fulfill the content criteria should be deleted.
  • User pages may be deleted at the request of the user they belong to.

Page protection


Most pages should remain unprotected and allow editing by both anonymous and registered users. Protection is generally only applied to:

  • Critical parts of the site. This includes pages like the main page or widely used templates.
  • Articles that are frequent targets of vandalism.
  • Pages which are the "battleground" for an edit war. If a set of editors repeatedly reverts each other's changes, an administrator may protect the page to encourage them to resolve the dispute in a different manner (i.e. by discussion as appropriate).
  • User pages may be protected at the request of the respective user.


In general, page protection should only be applied as long as necessary. Especially articles should only be protected for a reasonably short timeframe.

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.

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 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 reflect 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 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 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 confidence may be called in a forum by the community at any time. Votes of confidence are non-binding and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines. A minimum of three petitioners must bring forth the vote of confidence. Like any user-rights request, bureaucrats will adjudicate the results of votes of 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 confidence must provide 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.

See also