Fallout Roleplaying Wiki
For a list of administrators and moderators of the Fallout Roleplaying Wiki, see Fallout Roleplaying Wiki:Administrators‎‎.
This page contains the Fallout Fanfiction and Roleplaying Wiki's administration policy. It describes rules for article management, contributor moderation, block and ban appeals, and expectations established for administrators and moderators.
  • Policies set general rules for the wiki's administration and its content.
  • Any registered editor is free to edit their own pages only unless permission by the original poster on an administrator is given.
  • 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.


  • Pages that do not fulfill the content criteria that remain unedited by their original author should be put up for adoption or deleted, depending on the content.
  • 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.
  • 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.


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. The possible reasons 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 year or permanent ban

Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans

This 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.

Due to block limitations, the user seeking an appeal must request via their own talk page, addressed to an active bureaucrat. The request can also be submitted to the bureaucrat's Community Central message wall, which can be accessed via the url community.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:User, substituting "User" with the bureaucrat's user name. Where both of these options are not possible, or no response is received after three day period has passed, please reach out to Fandom staff.

Bureaucrat review
When evaluating received requests, bureaucrats should extend the courtesy of listening with an open and fair mind. The bureaucrat charged with reviewing a permanent ban or block may wish to examine the following non-exhaustive list when evaluating the request:

  • The events that lead to the final ban/block
  • Any attempts to circumvent the ban/block
  • The length of time that has passed
  • Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban/block
  • The user's good acts prior to the ban/block
  • Any personal growth the user has done since the ban/block
  • Their behavior on other wikis

Discussion forum
If the bureaucrat believes that clemency is warranted, they will communicate their intention to endorse with the user and begin a forum under "Wiki discussion." The forum's title should follow the format "SaintPain Appeal: Username." The content and order are at the discretion of the endorsing staff but should include a brief introduction and bureaucrat statement. A section can be reserved for the user's statement and a comment section for community member feedback.

If needed, the bureaucrat will then lift the user's wiki block for purposes of participating in the process, to allow for the user to argue their own case. The user is limited to editing the forum, their own talk page, talk pages of those who have posted on theirs, and the talk page of the endorsing staff member only. Any messages should relate to the appeals process only. Any breach of this may result in the discussion immediately being closed and resolved in the negative at the bureaucrat's discretion. The user should post their own statement on the forum and inform the bureaucrat when complete. The purpose of the discussion forum is to receive statements from the community, not to serve as a vote. The forum should run for one week. If there is no objection, the ban or block may be lifted at this time.

Community poll
If there is an objection, the bureaucrat will close the discussion forum and open a community poll for a duration of one week. From here, the poll will follow all normal policy vote procedures with bureaucrats adjudicating the results. If the community vote favors the applicant, any remaining bans or blocks will be removed, but any user rights will not be reapplied. If the community vote fails, the original ban or block will be reinstated. Bans or blocks are only to be reviewed once.

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 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.

See also