 |
Administrator |
- Thursday, September 15th, 2016- I achieved 500 edits.
- Saturday, October 29th, 2016- I achieved 1000 edits.
- Tuesday, November 8th, 2016- I achieved 2000 edits.
- Wednesday, November 9th, 2016- I achieved 3000 edits.
- Saturday, December 17th, 2016- I achieved 4000 edits.
- Saturday, February 18th, 2017- I achieved 5000 edits.
- Thursday, April 20th, 2017-I achieved 6000 edits.
- Tuesday, May 16th, 2017-I achieved 7000 edits.
- Thursday, July 27th, 2017-I achieved 8000 edits.
- Monday, November 6th, 2017-I achieved 9000 edits.
- Monday, January 8th, 2018- I achieved 10000 edits.
- June 19th, 2018- I achieved 11000 edits.
- April 16th, 2019- I achieved 12000 edits.
- March 3rd, 2020- I achieved 13000 edits.
My favorite pages
Blocking
When it comes to vandalism, always look for malicious intent Remember that not everyone knows how to edit Wikis, they may experiment and add nonsense text or blank a page completely by accident. For an act to be considered vandalism, there are two criteria that need to be fulfilled: (1) the act itself defaces the page, (2) the act itself was fully intended to deface the page - these are two very different things. Blocking should only be done when malicious intent has been relatively ascertained, e.g. one page blanked is not enough, but three in a row you can safely assume something is up. For first-time acts of vandalism, after fixing the vandalism, the user should be given either a warning or a 1-3 day block For IP addresses:
- First-time - Give the user a warning or a 1-3 day block
- Second-time vandalism after having been blocked - 3-day - 1-week block.
- Serial offenders - 1-week to 1-month blocks.
Infinite blocks should never be given out to IP addresses because: (1) IP addresses can change, so you might prevent a future person who's visiting the Wiki for the first time from editing (2) No one is quite that irredeemable.
- Follow the above. Though in the case of established users who have a history of good edits, it should raise an alarm that perhaps the user has been hacked. For new (and possibly junk) accounts, those accounts can be given an infinite block if it is obvious that the account was created simply to wreak damage on the Wiki articles (i.e. blatant vandalism).
- Usually, blocking of established users happens for reasons detailed in the next section.
How to resolve disputes
- Individuals - People are wired differently, and are raised in a whole host of backgrounds to you have no access to. So try, first of all, to be patient and understanding. If you see bullying behaviour, call them out on it firmly and calmly, while providing evidence for your claims. In serious cases, an admin will look into whether the user deserves a block. Milder cases can be addressed by leaving a gentle note on the user's talk page.
- Content - For disputes about content in articles, there is a 3RR (three-revert rule) hard limit to prevent edit-warring. Any users that have reverted an article three times or more over legitimate content disputes (i.e. vandalism excluded) will be blocked. The idea is that in a legitimate dispute (even if you are certain that you are right), you should take the discussion to the article's talk page and hash it out there, rather than communicate over a series of edit summaries - which is not a talkspace users can properly follow. This also allows other users to weigh in.
Warning Policy
- Rollback is given to registered users who request it for reverting vandalism. There aren't any requirements that need to be met apart from that the user account should not be newly-created and should have a few edits on it.
- Yes, a block reason should always be given. This is for accountability to other admins, so they can review improper blocks as necessary, but also because behind an IP address is a potential editor. By blocking them with a reason, you indicate that whatever bit of vandalism they committed was noticed and rectified by the community and this sends them the message that such an act ought not be repeated. This in turn might spur them to make worthwhile contributions in the future. In my experience at least, many established users started out with 'harmless prank edits' on the Wiki before going on to make useful contributions, precisely because they were called out on their behaviour.
to do list
- Put short links where possible on the longer, more burdensome to load pages.
- Monsterbox, like Angel and Demonbox.
- Policy stating that Big Bads are to be determined at end of season and that attempts before are mere speculation, unless without a reliable source backing the statement.
- Policy to manage galleries and limit them to relevant photos regarding Supernatural.
FTWinchester I was going to say to remind the newer users to link new pages to and from existing pages so that our orphaned and dead-end pages would not swell. I worked hard for more than a year to cut those issues down and I check the advanced admin functions to find that orphaned pages have ballooned again 2:09 FTWinchester I was planning to bring up the orphaned/dead-end page issues on the admin noticeboard but I ran into technical issues editing the page and creating a template for it
Zane T 69: I've considered creating a blog, and directing ppl to potential edits.
FTWinchester if a contributor can't cite an episode/reference, then chances are what the contributor is adding isn't canon to begin with 2:15 SeraphLucifer Should we only use references for future episodes or even the past ones Some referances spread over the Characters infobox shall I delete them? 2:15 Zane T 69 I'd like to see all information cited and referenced. 2:15 SeraphLucifer Like in Crowley's page, Lucky the Leprachaun 2:16 FTWinchester Yeah. We have to cite pretty much everything we can but just be careful about spoilers and spoiler warnings and potential retcons We can definitely cite but we have to make sure edits are corrected once a future episode airs completely so we can be sure what we added was correct and in line with canon And yes, Zane, mentoring WG18 would be nice seeing as he's garnering a lot of support I'm quite confident his adminship will push through eventually
- https://supernatural.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000005134 --Contains promise of an appeal.