Woah...[]
We have 29 administrators?! Nukey (talk) 21:40, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some of them are inactive and will likely not be coming back, though. Ausir(talk) 21:51, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
Admins removing good edits, and making bad ones.[]
I have recently come across an admin who had removed my quality edit for no reason. Aren't admins supposed to give the wiki quality, not keep it in the cesspool of improper grammar and invalid facts? Isn't there higher standards for becoming an admin? I believe that Admins should have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and not be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's not spam etc. --76.102.17.114 18:52, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- First thing to do whenever there is a disagreement about edits is to bring it up on that user's talk page. Direct communication is always the best first step. No need to bring in other people or authorities unless there is a disagreement that the two parties involved cannot work out between themselves.--Gothemasticator 19:03, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I see you did bring it up on the talk page. It's a little confusing because you are switching between being logged in and not logged in. I'm taking this to your talk page(s).--Gothemasticator 19:10, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke?[]
Hasn't this guy been banned and stripped off his User Rights? Undead Hat 14:06, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Moderators are subject to the rules, just like any other user. As a user with sysops rights is able to unban themselves, there rights have been removed for the duration of the ban to ensure the ban is honoured.
14:19, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that no matter where i have replied to or added a passage to an existing piece my work is constantly deleted without any warning i have a severe learning disability dyslexia and it takes me a long time to read and to type a reply i joined this site for my love of fallout yet it seems noones is allowed to edit anything if i have made mistakes surely they can be noted so that i can learn how to use this site correctly its not like its easy yet i feel as if am wasting my time because of the magic delete button,yesterday it took me over an hour to reply add to a page only to find it must'nt have reached these levels of acceptance by whoever sits and moniters it so it was gone nice one i look forward to deleteing everyone elses work cos that seems to be the way it is done here
who has been banned and stripped...and again this did happen to me without warning this site is not easy to use at least i don't think so but banning everyone is just a power trip in my eyes i don't believe people who make mistakes do so on purpose otherwise all pages would be shit and messed with —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Leemp83 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but keep in mind that we must enforce our policies and guidelines more strictly than some other sites in order to maintain a consistent high quality level of content. If you feel like anything is truly unjust, you can inform me or another admin. And your topic isn't quite relevant on this page. --Skire (talk) 23:26, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Wow...![]
We have 10 admins, that is very unexpected. Perhaps we should make a forum to extend the requirements (of admins, at least)? Energy X ∞ 12:55, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that will be immediately necessary. Eventually it will be, but not now. If you have enough administrators (I believe we have more than enough as of now) then all we need to do is not approve of more applicants - it is on a per-need basis. --Skire (talk) 12:59, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
Adding Rollback[]
I am wondering why we do not have rollback users such as Yukichigai listed in here... They are technically SYSops and since they have the rights, shouldn't they be listed? 
"Some say this user is a Moderator..." 
10:27, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I believe we should revise new rules for inactivity for Chat mods as their only job is to monitor chat.
"Some say this user is a Moderator..." 10:30, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- There's only one user with just rollback rights, and you named him. He's the only one left from when there were still only rollback rights and no patroller rights (before medio 2011). I don't think we need to name him as just being a rollbacker (not a patroller and certainly not a sysop). He's coming close to revoking of rights anyway. Bureaucrats are working on revising/including the inactivity policy for chatmods. Jspoel 10:42, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- There's only one user with just rollback rights, and you named him. He's the only one left from when there were still only rollback rights and no patroller rights (before medio 2011). I don't think we need to name him as just being a rollbacker (not a patroller and certainly not a sysop). He's coming close to revoking of rights anyway. Bureaucrats are working on revising/including the inactivity policy for chatmods. Jspoel
The Archive[]
With the new Archive added I think the Bureaucrats and Administrators need an extra rule added. I know that the archive is new and not many know it's here. I (and A Follower I noticed) added some users to the Archive who resigned. While we both love history and making sure everything's in order, I would just like to refresh the community that there is an Archive now, so if a user has their rights removed the acting admin/bcrat should put the name and date of removal on the archive. This isn't a big deal nor am I jabbing at anyone, I just want to make sure that everything's in line. Thanks everyone! "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 16:51, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Avatars[]
I guess, since Wikia moved all the images to a new database, there is nothing much to do but to remove all these blank avatars. ☢ Energy X ☣ 21:18, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
Minimums for Bureaucrats[]
Is it intentional that there are no explicitly stated minimum requirements for Bureaucrats? Or is it implied that the minimums for Administrators also apply identically to Bureaucrats? (If so, I think that should be explicitly stated to avoid uncertainty.) -- Bovinejeff (talk) 22:32, April 3, 2019 (UTC)
- I belive the idea is that in the case of there being no bureaucrats, someone would have to step up, and this is a lot easier when there are no requirements. I don't know for sure if that is the reason, and it's probably not the entire reason. We are currently looking at proposing a rule to add some requirements. Stay tuned. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 22:36, April 3, 2019 (UTC)
- There are no minimums from the days when our founder, Ausir, was still around and making decisions without the need for the Democratic process with every single vote and discussion.
- In those days, he simply promoted the people he trusted to become bureaucrats, regardless of a vote, and our system hasn't changed much since those days even with the absence of Ausir. 寧靜 00:15, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
- In those days, he simply promoted the people he trusted to become bureaucrats, regardless of a vote, and our system hasn't changed much since those days even with the absence of Ausir. 寧靜
Removal of link to archive[]
I see that at some point the link to the archive of rights holders was removed from this page. When the forum to create it was held, it was decided that the appropriate place for it was as a subpage of this page, and was to be linked from this page. Is there any reasonable reason why the link should not be on this page? TheGunny2.0 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing no comment, I have replaced the link to the archive and also added a link to the forum vote records page.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)