Talk:Administrators guide

Add Portuguese language
Add Portuguese (Guia de administrador) language.--Eduaddad (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks! --Alianin T &bull; C 14:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Change "On Gamepedia, all blocks are applied globally" to "On Gamepedia, all blocks are applied globally unless set otherwise," or remove that sentence completely. The block settings I guess have been modified since, so that you can deselect "add new or modify existing global block."--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * done -Xbony2 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Update request
Could  be changed to   in the hiding individual revisions section? I would also strongly suggest linking to the RevisionDelete page somewhere in that section.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Added. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

More edit requests
Just a few things I've noticed that I would appreciate if someone could correct:


 * I think in the "Types of administrator" section, it should be clarified that all bureaucrats also have the administrator role. Here it makes it seem like there are 3 different types of admins: administrators, bureaucrats, and wiki guardians. However, it's not exactly the case; it's really just admins and guardians, while bureaucrats are a supplement which allows for modifying user rights. Maybe adding a sentence such as "Do note that all bureaucrats should also have the normal administrator or wiki guardian role; the bureaucrat role itself doesn't provide most of the administrator features."
 * Bureaucrats do not have admin rights. They have rights that admins don't have. To have all the rights, a user would need both Administrator and Bureaucrat. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Game widow (talk • contribs) at 1:21, 31 October 2018‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * Special:Blockip is no longer the name, it's now Special:Block. It looks like it's a "special page redirect" now or whatever you would call such a thing.
 * "All blocks on Gamepedia are applied globally." Nope, blocks can be local now. See the edit request above; I didn't catch this sentence.
 * "No permanent ("Indefinite") blocks should be applied." I'm pretty sure this is false. Clear spammers, sockpuppets, and very persistent repeated vandals can be indefinitely blocked, as far as I know. Of course, this isn't true for IPs. Maybe we should change it to "Permanent (Indefinite) blocks should only be applied to registered users, as IPs can be reassigned or shared"?
 * "If you see this, revert it immediately, and contact your wiki manager to hide the revision." Wouldn't it also be acceptable to contact a local bureaucrat, if one exists?
 * I would recommend adding something to the Rollback section such as "Rollback should only be used for clear vandalism and spam. If an edit is not such, assume good faith and leave a polite revert summary."
 * Decapitalize "Administrators" in the headings of the first section. Administrators are a common noun and headings should use sentence case.
 * Decapitalize "Move Protection" in its heading. Having Move Protection and then Create protection annoys me so much! :-)

There's quite a bit more, actually, but this is what I noticed at first glance. It might be worth having an editcopy page for this, considering how many things I find that need to be corrected. We could probably lower the protection, but it seems to be standard practice to protect the Administrators guide on all wikis, which I've never thought was a good idea.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Game widow, I worded that weirdly. What I meant was that the bureaucrat role doesn't automatically have admin rights, so all bureaucrats should also be given the admin role, if that makes any sense (i.e. when an admin is promoted to crat their admin role shouldn't be removed). I thought it would be nice to clarify to users, because wiki guardians are different; wiki guardians do have all the admin rights by default and generally shouldn't also be an admin.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I added the title case and the rollback note and fixed the special pages. I don't know if we want to be encouraging indefinite blocks of users like that, might give new admins the wrong impression about when to use it. In the few cases where there are bureaucrats to contact, contacting them would work for hiding revisions, but it should still probably be elevated if there's something going on that requires revision hiding. For both of these, some better wording would probably be in order. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr Pie 5. Regarding the indefinite block thing, I definitely think we should modify it in some way. There are definitely cases where indefinite blocks should be perfectly appropriate. However, I do see what you're saying; many admins on Gamepedia are new to wikis and may not be clear on what vandalism, sockpuppetry, and clear spam are. But I also don't know if we should encourage users to only temporarily block in cases of extreme spam and persistent long-term sockpuppetry. We could put specific guidelines, but that seems over bureaucratic and there would always be exceptions; I'm against putting specific rules for stuff like this unless absolutely necessary. Could we maybe say something like that indefinite blocks should always be used as a last resort, except for accounts only being used for advertising with no indication of helping the wiki or for clear sockpuppets? But then we'd have to explain what sockpuppetry is. Hmmm. I will say that if "indefinite blocks should not be used for plain vandalism" were a rule, I think pretty much all Gamepedia Staff will have violated that a long time ago.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I do see what you're saying about the whole bureaucrats-hiding-revisions thing as well, so maybe it would be better to not implement that specific edit request I suggested. However, I still think we should change the whole indefinite block thing.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bumping this, as I still think that it's misleading to say that indefinite blocks should never be applied.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New version with a major rewrite
See the new version itself, as well as the changes from the current version.

I have added details on several subjects, changed the article structure (which I believe should reduce relevant information being located after where it would be relevant), and ensured that the information reflects the current state of Gamepedia. The changes are probably too numerous to list, so I can only suggest reading the diff above, or the history of my draft. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Added. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have revised the text somewhat, the new version may be easier to read. See the changes from the current version. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been added as well. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)