Fallout Wiki:Policy Verification Project 2022

This is the home page of a Fallout Wiki project. A project is a collaboration of editors improving articles and other content related to a particular subject. For more information, see Fallout Wiki:Projects.
This project has been completed and is no longer active.

The Policy Verification Project is a project that aims to confirm that all active content on policy pages has been properly agreed to by the community on a consenus basis, identify any later revisions that may need clarification, and provide advice to the community on what to do regarding orphan policies.

Scope[]

The Project consists of the following phases.

Identify and list each policy by name, and each paragraph
Identify the origin of the consensus of each policy, and each section of each policy.
Identify any further edits, revisions or clarifications that have not been properly adopted by the community through its official decision making process.
Report this to the community via a forum to consider further action on how to resolve any orphan policies.

A word on policy and guideline creation and amendment[]

There is a difference between policies and guidelines:

“Policy - a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.:”

“Guideline - a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.”

The major difference between the two are that policies are like laws: they place definitive requirements on people's actions. Guidelines are more general in nature and place rules or principles on things, i.e. article organization, categorization etc. For example: an article must conform to the article layout guidelines. A person does not. A person must conform to the editing policy of making their edits by the guidelines. It is important to understand the distinction between the two. You can't punish an article that is out of compliance with guidelines. You can punish a person who is out of compliance with conduct guidelines. It seems we often confuse the two. It is important that policies, those governing rules that apply to people, and guidelines, those governing rules that apply to content, are worded properly as such and are placed in the correct sections of the policies and guidelines. Violations of policy may result in administrative action, violations of guidelines should never, they should result in corrective action, to educate the editor and make the article conform to the guideline.

That being said, there are established procedures for changing both. But they differ, and I'll explain why:

Guidelines can very over time, as they are most often "best practices" that have to adjust to changes in the way mediawiki or the site functions from a technical standpoint, or have to react to things like new games or content to cover. For example: when the games template stopped working and needed to be removed from the wiki, any guideline that described how to place it on articles needed to be changed. Other changes though, like changing the canon policy which has a wide impact on what articles are even placed on the wiki, should only be changed with community input and consensus.
Policies should never be changed without community consensus, as they affect how users are held accountable for their actions. Even a small change to the wording of a phrase can have a significant impact on how the phrase can be interpreted.

The guidelines and policies can be edited for readability, i.e. grammar and punctuation, and for clarity. It's the clarity part of that which is often problematic. Changes to a policy page updating links or placing a list in a table for easier reading are ok, but any substantive change to the phrasing of the policy can change the intended meaning of the policy in a way not intended by the original vote that made it a policy in the first place.

In any case, any new policy or guideline or material change to a policy or guideline must be put forth for discussion for at least a week and that discussion must be advertised so that every person who wishes to be involved can be. After discussion, a consensus on the new policy or guideline or any amendment must be reached. This can be reached if there is no dissent during the discussion phase. If there is dissent in the discussion phase, it must go to a formal vote. The exact wording of the proposed policy or amendment must be clear to those discussing or voting on such. After a new policy or amendment is ratified, that exact wording should be placed in the appropriate policy or section.

There are no other approved methods to change or create policy. Discussions on discord, or on a talk page that do not afford the entire community a opportunity for input should never be used to create or change policy. The only approved place is the official wiki discussion forum and the wiki proposal forum.

Participants[]

Policy pages[]

The identified policy pages are:

Process[]

Each policy page needs to be reviewed for changes that may include removals of content, additions of content, or material changes (changes that substantively change the wording so that the scope or intent is other than what it was originally). Each of these changes, once identified will need to be cross referenced against any possible policy forum discussion/vote to determine their origin, or in the case of removals and additions, if those policy points were moved from or to a different policy page. Formatting changes to pages and minor grammatical or punctuation changes are not to be considered material as long as they do not change the extant meaning of any particular phrase. Please approach this with a clear eyed, sober, analytical view. The intent is not to speculate on why any changes were made or point fingers at any person that made them. It is simply to determine what changes have been made to the policy pages and determine what, if anything, requires action to restore the content so that is in compliance with policy creation/change guidelines. All reviews must be verified by another user. Please mark the appropriate section of the progress table as complete for each policy page reviewed and verified. The process should follow these general guidelines:

Identify when the paragraph (or paragraphs) were adopted in their original form (or last faced a major revision) on the forum.
Identify any minor changes following this
Identify any forums showing consent or assent to the changes
Using the information above, report what orphan additions exist to the headings below
Once all pages have been checked, report all findings to the forum.

Also, please check to see if the proper navigation templates are in place on each page. I'm starting to find some that are not.

Progress[]

Progress table[]

Policy changes, referencing to forums, suggested remedies and review
Policy page	Checked for changes	Xref to forums	Unreferenced removals?	Unreferenced additions?	Material changes?	Suggested remedies?	Peer review	Complete
Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines/Sitemap	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c					✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Conduct	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Rights holder activity policy	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/User rights requests	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Sakaratte	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Character article	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny			✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Creature article	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny			✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Item article	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Location article	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Quest article	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Bug policy	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Content policy	✓ Intrepid359	✓ Intrepid359			✓ Intrepid359	✓ Intrepid359	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny				✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Discord	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Discussions forum guidelines	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny					✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Editing guideline	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Fallout canon	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Fallout Wiki:Image policy	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Notable loot policy	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny			✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny				✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Non canon	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny				✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Publications	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny				✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny				✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:User conduct guideline	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Fallout Wiki:Voting regulations	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny		✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c
Category:Depreciated policies and guidelines	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c					✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny
Category:User rights guides	✓ Agent c	✓ Agent c				✓ Agent c	✓ Gunny	✓ Gunny

Policies and guidelines[]

Prior to mid-2021 all changes appear to be made in compliance with the policy guideline at the time up publishing. I will focus on changes after that.

The games, navbox and shortcut template were removed from the top of the page and replaced with a for template pointing to the policy siteplan and a forum archive. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The entire first section stating "Nukapedia's policies and guidelines aim to provide a comprehensible framework of "do's," "don'ts" and best practices for editors at this wiki.", "Policies set general rules for the wiki's administration and its content. Their goal is to establish basic criteria for all content and rules for using administrative tools." and "Guidelines describe desired etiquette and common practice in the creation, editing and organization of articles on this wiki. Their goal is to make the wiki easier to use for both editors and readers alike and to make its appearance more consistent and streamlined." were replaced with "Policies refer to the processes and rules observed involving the creation, editing, and management of articles on Nukapedia the Fallout Wiki as well as treatment of other users. The wiki can be edited by any registered user and is governed by the consensus of its community. All editors must abide by the following policies, which complement those of Fandom." Mostly semantic changes that shorten the guidance. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the previous version, which was more detailed in its description. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Complete removal of the section titled "Adding or changing policies and guidelines". A portion of this material related to officially changing policy was moved to Fallout Wiki:Voting regulations, but not all the content, specifically the sections on editing policies for clarity and readability, and the ability of administrators to veto or decree a policy when necessary. I could not find a corresponding policy vote to remove those two points. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The entire page was converted from a table listing policies with a short description of their content to a table consisting of image links and shorter descriptions. There is some fidelity lost in that, but it only matters in case the actual policy pages themselves were changed in any material way. Although a number of policy page links were removed, it appears that they are linked from other policy pages, like the policy site map. Some discussion about whether that is the most effective way to navigate these pages could be had, as these changes seem to have been made without community input or consent.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A link to Fandom's community central article on LBGTQIA+ was added, which is a resource page, not a policy page, is hosted at community central and I could not find any reference to the inclusion of this in our official site policies. Not that inclusion of helpful resource pages is bad, but this section could have been labeled as such and included link to many helpful community central resource and help pages. I do not know why this particular page was singled out for inclusion. I discussion on which help pages should be made and where the most appropriate place they should be linked from.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer REview compelte. No further issues. Agent c (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines/Sitemap[]

Adoption/Confirmation - Not relevant, page is a policy navigation page. Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Issues:

Policy link missing - Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Conduct - Corrected Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Pages in wrong order (Content and discord) - Corrected Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Policy link missing - Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements - Corrected Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Policy link missing - Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Non canon - Corrected Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The "By Category" section will need a more substantive review Agent c (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Administration policy[]

22:07, 1 August 2017 Adoption of SaintPain Rule Agent c (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
21:45, 21 January 2019 - Change a Wikia domain to fandom, not a substantive change Agent c (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
18:05, 3 October 2020 - Some bullet point formatting
- "Articles which are frequently targets of vandalism." changed to "Articles that are frequent targets of vandalism." Agent c (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
09:49, 28 October 2020 - Change of layout on "SaintPain rule" title.
01:19, 4 May 2021 - Navbox added
19:38, 4 August 2021 "Vote of Confidence" changed to a "Vote of no confidence", if we're being pedantic there is a minor difference, but not one arguing about.
00:07, 16 August 2021 - grammatical corrections.
- Substantive change " no response is received after a timely period has passed" changed to "Three day period". Other
15:04, 20 August 2021 - Many origanisational changes/page name changes, added SaintPain intro. Substantive changes:
- "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)" reworded to "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:"
- "Only for registered users" removed from "Any additional offenses may result in a permanent ban (only for registered users)"
- "Issues in personal life" removed from "Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban (Issues in personal life, etc)."
- "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." changed to "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 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."
20:41, 20 September 2021 - Additions cited (re: Forum:Meeting of the Minds - August 2021)
- "and soliciting users to edit by proxy." added following "after 12 months have passed from their last infraction of the rules, including the use of multiple accounts. "
- "This means that administrators must leave talk pages open when blocking, except in cases of gross misconduct/abuse. In those cases, any appeal requests" added to "Due to block limitations, the user seeking an appeal must request via their own talk page, addressed to an active bureaucrat."
- "The bureaucrat will provide guidance on the process including instructions on submitting materials for review"" added to section "Bureaucrat review"
20:57 20 September 2021
- Substantive change: Addition of "In the case of staff member resignation, a bureaucrat cannot give rights back unilaterally, resignation is permanent." No supporting vote or even forum.
8 October 2021
- Deletion and Page Protection topics stated to be moved to Content policy page. No equivalent Deletion section found at destination.
  - Wording changed: "Most pages should remain unprotected and allow editing by both anonymous and registered users. Protection is generally only applied to:" to "Most pages should remain unprotected, exceptions being:"
  - Wording changed: "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)" to "If a set of editors repeatedly reverts each other's changes, an administrator may protect the page to encourage them to resolve the dispute by way of communication."
  - Wording changed: "In general, page protection should only be applied as long as necessary. Especially articles should only be protected for a reasonably short timeframe" to "Page protection should only be applied as long as necessary. Mainspace content articles should not be protected indefinitely."
Revision as of 20:53, 9 October 2021 saintpain Ban moved. Appears to have landed in tact, further changes reviewed under its heading.
Revision as of 08:17, 10 October 2021 Policy reasons for blocking removed, and instead transcluded from user conduct guidelines, and the listed items is not the same. As there is a functional different between policy and guidelines, and the reasons reduced, I would class this as a substantive change.
Revision as of 08:18, 10 October 2021 - Blocking changed to blocks.
Revision as of 13:35, 24 October 2021 "Bureaucrat" changed to state user rights can't be given back. I would say this is a clarification in line with the spirit.
Revision as of 10:27, 7 November 2021 - Linked in User Rights activity rule. This is noted as being per Forum:Vote: Rights holder activity/November 7, 2021.
Revision as of 01:44, 14 December 2021 and Revision as of 01:45, 14 December 2021 Minor edits to support saintpain move.
Revision as of 19:14, 23 January 2022 User rights requests added. This seems to be a link rather than a policy change.
Revision as of 03:44, 17 February 2022 Changed to include the votes template, and administrators and moderators changed to "rights holders", given where this is I don't think its a substantive change.
Revision as of 04:10, 17 February 2022 Set display title.
Revision as of 13:20, 17 February 2022 Administrative conduct moved to conduct policy, however there appear to be some Substantive changes
- "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." and "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. In the case of staff member resignation, rights cannot be given back unilaterally, resignation is permanent." became "if an administrator is involved in an editing dispute, they should not use admin abilities or status to solve it. If an admin reverts an action, they must explain the reason for the revert. In addition, No single administrator may unilaterally overturn any moderative action or decision by another administrator. The community can call for a vote of no confidence regarding any staff member at any time, the process outlined within." Which changes the revert policy. There does not appear to be a vote for this
- Votes of no confidence are non-binding removed from no conf policy. There does not appear to be a vote for this.
- Vote guidelines changed to vote proceedures. Non substantive
Revision as of 05:19, 24 February 2022
Revision as of 00:20, 11 March 2022 Moved the policy box.
Latest revision as of 10:55, 2 May 2022 Unlocked.

Administration policy/Conduct[]

This one was more difficult to do as the content was moved from the admin policy page to a subpage. I put the old content in a sandbox and then edited it with the new policy page to get the diffs.

Change	Removals	Additions	Note
Replaced the opening paragraph.	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.	If an administrator is involved in an editing dispute, they should not use admin abilities or status to solve it. If an admin reverts an action, they must explain 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 it first. If consensus cannot be reached, a third member of administration should be asked to mediate.	Moved the requirement to explain/discuss the revert to this paragraph from the second.
Removed section in second paragraph allowing admins to undo each other's actions.	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.		Moved the requirement to explain/discuss the revert from this paragraph to the first. I can find no forum vote discussing this.
Added two paragraphs on administrative autonomy.		No single administrator may unilaterally overturn any moderative action or decision by another administrator. In the event an administrator feels that another administrator's decision should be overturned, a good faith effort should be made to discuss the issue in a timely manner. If doing so does not, or most likely will not, produce a resolution, a group consensus from the rest of the administration may reverse an individual administrator's moderative decision. Administrative autonomy does not apply to former administrators. With the exception of blocks, any decision by a former administrator may be overturned by a current administrator at any time. In the case of staff member resignation, rights cannot be given back unilaterally, resignation is permanent.	I can find no forum vote discussing this
Reordered list of applicable offenses and numerous paragraphs under the misuse of rights section and the 3 paragraphs detailing votes of confidence were left on the administration policy page.			No significant changes to these sections.

I suggest the removed sections replaced and the unreferenced new sections be removed until such time as the correct amendment process is complete.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes confirmed in admin policy audit. Peer review complete, no further comments. Agent c (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Administration policy/Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans[]

Again, this policy was moved to a subpage. Significant changes are:

Addition of and soliciting users to edit by proxy. in lede paragraph
Addition of reason for the naming of the policy.
Addition of two paragraphs detailing where and how to make the request.
Replaced the paragraphs *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. and *The Bureaucrat in charge of reviewing a permanent ban may wish to examine the following when evaluating the request (this list is non exhaustive): with When evaluating received requests, bureaucrats should extend the courtesy of listening with an open and fair mind. The bureaucrat will provide guidance on the process including instructions on submitting materials for review. The bureaucrat charged with reviewing a permanent ban or block may wish to examine the following non-exhaustive list when evaluating the request:
Removed (Issues in personal life, etc). from **Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban (Issues in personal life, etc).
Removed Wikia from **Their behavior on other Wikia wikis
Changed *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. to 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.
Changed **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. to 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.
Removed *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. and *Any special rights held by the user will not be reapplied. and added 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.

I recommend returning the policy to the original text that was voted on, while keeping the section for the reasoning of the name and the other small clarification changes like changing "ban" to "ban/block".

Changes confirmed in Administration Policy. Peer review complete, no further comments. Agent c (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Administration policy/Rights holder activity policy[]

The wording of this policy was changed slightly from the wording approved on the vote when the policy page was created. Further revisions have slightly changed wording and added in the subsequently approved policy amendments. None of the changes to the original wording are material, but I would highly recommend that any policy page created or existing policy editing reflect the exact wording of that which was approved in the policy vote.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review complete, no further comments. Agent c (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Administration policy/User rights requests[]

Another policy that was moved to it's own subpage, which requires quite a bit of wrangling to determine all the changes. As best as I can see, all the changes made to specific requirements for extra rights positions are correct as per forums. The only material changes I see are the addition of specific instructions on how to make the requests. I can not find any discussion/vote for making these policy, and since they use the word must, it implies it's a requirement, which would be a material change. I believe the easiest way to remedy this would be to simply make it a suggestion rather than a requirement. It allows for users to have a standardized way to make the applications while it removes the implication this is a requirement where, if not met, may disallow any non-compliant requests. Any material change making something a requirement must go through the proper discussion/vote process.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that a little pedantic, but no reason why it couldn't be changed back. Peer review complete. Agent c (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article layout guideline[]

Prior to 2020 there was no change since 2018 so assumption will be made that any changes were in line with discussions or cosmetic fixes

Date	Change	Addition	Removal
20 August 2020	The word Fallout was italicised in line with game titles.
17 April 2021	Change of meaning from suggestive to affirmative.	Good structure is likely to produce high-quality articles.	Good structure results in easy to read, high-quality articles.
10 June 2021	Addition of rule for Fallout 76 lead section to use `{{In FO76}}`. This was reverted same day
20 September 2021	Addition to policy, this was then removed 09 October 2021	Infoboxes should follow best practices to keep them user-friendly and efficient. They should include confirmed information only, with no "unknown" statements. Data and concise, succinct information is allowed. References, long explanations, extensive lists and content should be not be placed in infoboxes but instead placed in the article itself.
09 October 2021	Above change was removed		Infoboxes should follow best practices to keep them user-friendly and efficient. They should include confirmed information only, with no "unknown" statements. Data and concise, succinct information is allowed. References, long explanations, extensive lists and content should be not be placed in infoboxes but instead placed in the article itself.
	Removed the section "Section ordering in multi-game articles"		In articles whose subject spans multiple Fallout games, the sections for the various games should always be ordered by canonicity. As an example, an article describes the various drugs which are known to exist in the Fallout universe. It has sections for Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and Fallout 3. In this case, the Fallout section would come first, then the Fallout 2 one, then Fallout 3 and Fallout Tactics last.
	Removals from section "On Structure" and the two paragraphs were merged	One of the most important parts of wiki editing is how to structure an article. from the first paragraph and try using a shallow structure rather than a deep one. Having too many nested sections usually leads to a confusing or unreadable article.
	Context removed from "Section Ordering and Naming" section		Please note that on this wiki,
	The section "Examples" was merged in via headline removal.
	Removal of clarity as to who can use page management templates and their purpose		you notice that [...] and want to bring it to the attention of other editors or administrators
	Removal of games template from layout guide		{{Games}} should be placed just below the infobox (if there is one). It produces small icons in the top right corner of an article which allow the reader to see "at a glance" what games or sources the article relates to or is based on. The template should be used in every article; almost no exceptions exist.
	Removal of information regarding project tags		Some of these projects have tags or boxes which are placed on the pages which the project affects; these should be placed below the article management boxes.
	Truncation of guideline on Lead Section	Articles should generally start with a lead section which is not more than a few sentences. Its purpose is to provide a short definition or overview of the article itself; after reading it, a reader should know what the article is about. If possible, the article title should be the subject of the first sentence; alternative titles should be mentioned in the lead section as well.	Articles start with a lead section of a few sentences. Its purpose is to provide a short definition or overview of the article itself.
	Rewrite of gallery section	If an article contains a lot of images, it is often better to place them in an own gallery section than to have them clutter the article. Please see the image policy.	A collection of images regarding the topic. Images should be placed here as opposed to in the body of articles. Please see the image policy.
23 January 2022	Reinstatement of `{{in FO76}}`	Use {{`in FO76`}} for all Fallout 76 articles.
17 February 2022	Pagetitle masked from guidelines to policy, removal of {{Games}} and `{{Shortcut}}`	{{Navbox wiki policies and guidelines}} [...] {{DISPLAYTITLE:Article layout policy}}	{{Navbox wiki policies and guidelines}}{{shortcut\|FW:LAY\|FW:LAYOUT}}

Notes

{{In FO76}} was originally put in place in advance of vote completion. From my own investigation, I cannot see that a vote was raised, but there was a forum to discuss it with largely support. The last comment was in April 2021, but was added and removed from the guidelines in June 2021 due a lack of consensus on if this should be in place as a guideline. As I cannot see any follow up discussion on the matter after this.
The raft of changes made on 09 October were done in the space of ~5 hours. Not unusual for editing, but there are returns to previously edited sections, which indicate that a formal policy may not have been written up in advance.

Suggestions

Rollback to last revision before 20 September 2021 and have an open discussion with the community about the changes and to consider w:c:Community Central Guidelines' recommendation of keep things structured but not too structured.

Article layout guideline/Character article[]

Most edits made after 2017 appear to be simple clarification edits, small formatting edits and addition of guidance for FO76 articles that do no seem to be material changes from previously established guidelines. Most of the formatting changes seem to be personal flavor, but so not change the content. The significant additions are adding Do not use years for FO76 articles. after removing timeline links from Time when the character lived/is encountered in one of the Fallout games, (i.e. the starting date of the character's respective game). For characters in FO1 this is 2161, for FO2 2241, for FO3 2277, for FNV 2281 and for FO4 2287 and adding or was introduced in. For Fallout 76 add the update in which the character was introduced, such as X appears in {{in FO76}} or with update {{in FO76|WL}}. after Which games/add-ons does this character appear in. and adding the "notes" section containing * In the infobox, the character's race/skin tone as seen in GECK/CK/xEdit should be noted in the technical tab's "GECK race." and * Gender parameters should not be used for robots or computers unless they self-identify. For those that do so, add gender to infobox with a reference showing self-identification. It could be argued that the additions are not mere clarifications of existing policy, as they expand on policy that was not explicitly stated prior to their addition, but also reflect probable changes to the pertinent sections and template as they themselves were changed.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - I would add that I think the F76 rule needs to be put on a more secure footing. No further comments. Agent c (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article layout guideline/Creature article[]

Changes to this guideline broadly fall into the same categories as the changes to characters above. Mostly formatting changes with the removal of some page links and addition of information related to FO76. As before, the formatting changes are mostly flavor and are subjective, not material.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - the only potentially substantive change I can see is "Robot" instead of "Mechanical Creature". I am unsure why this change was made (is it to exclude synths? are they not still robots of some kind?) Agent c (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article layout guideline/Item article[]

Again, the changes to this guideline seem to fall into the same categories as the above two. There were very few changes to the page and most were immaterial styling choices. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review, no comments. Agent c (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article layout guideline/Location article[]

Like the above three no material additions or removals.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review complete. Only thing potentially substantive I can see is the addition of Fallout 76 specific guidance. May be worth putting all of these on secure ground. Agent c (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article layout guideline/Quest article[]

See above. No material changes. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review complete, no comments. Agent c (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bug policy[]

No material changes.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review - No Comments. Agent c (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Content policy[]

8 October 2021 Redundancy guideline moved to policy page. Significant change - a guideline is more of a recommendation or best practice, whereas a policy is more of a mandate.
- Wording changed: "Redundancy and repetition should be avoided. There should only be a single article (or section of an article) where a given topic is presented in full detail. Other pages should link to the page with the details instead of repeating them. Only information that is directly relevant to the subject of a given article should be included in that article." to "There should only be a single article (or section of an article) where a given topic is presented in full detail. Other pages should link to the page or transclude the details instead of repeating them. Only information that is directly relevant to the subject of a given article should be included in that article."
At some point, the behind the scenes policy, voted in here and finalized here was changed from "'Behind the scenes' information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are obvious direct visual or textual correlations, in the event there is no developer confirmation" to "'Behind the scenes' information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only if there is developer confirmation or when there are obvious direct visual or textual correlations."
The similarities to real world weapons policy was seemingly added unilaterally in 2010 based on common practice. Unclear if any vote codified the policy.
Real world individual policy added unilaterally based on Discord conversation, not a proper policy forum.
Plagiarism policy removed in its entirety.

Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements[]

There appear to be a few small parts of the proposed guideline that did not make it into the final published version. I suggest the full text of the proposal voted on be added.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - Text was not moved to right page. Agent c (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Discord[]

There have been so many changes to this policy it isn't worth listing every single change, the table would be huge. Some of the changes like those to the structure of the page are ok, but I feel the best way forward is to revert the page to the last voted on version, that of 2018, and then add the couple of amendments that were voted on and structure the page in tables and add back in the channel info, etc.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review - You're not kidding. The strict "Zero tolerance" to toxicity strikes me as a rule wide open to abuse. I am unable to locate any forums discussing any changes beyond the "Open Moderation" discussion. Agent c (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Discussions forum guidelines[]

Most of the changes I see to the policy page fall into one of the following categories: amendment of policy per guidelines, grammar and spelling mistakes, link corrections, clarification of, or changes in the clarification of certain sections that do not appear to be material changes, addition of links in places where appropriate and overall flavor changes. None of what I saw constituted unsupported material changes. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - There have been no substantive changes since I imported the Chat rules with minor modiciations, and I remember running a forum on it. Agent c (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Editing guideline[]

Another general restructuring of the policy page, moving a number of things around as well as adding and removing things. Notable changes below:

Added Articles should not be created based on out-of-game mentions only, such as those from design documents or game guides. Content must have direct mention or appearance in-game to warrant an independent article. which is more of a content guideline than editing.
Added Wikipedia links not allowed outside of the behind the scenes section of gameplay articles. This does not apply to meta articles, such as voice actors.
Added section on verifiability which I can not find elsewhere prior.
Changed Avoid using bold formatting for general emphasis., Italics can be used for general emphasis, but should be used sparingly. and Avoid using quotation marks for emphasis. to Do not use quotation marks, italics, or bold for emphasis.
Added new section on article names including new instructions based on MOTM.
Added new section on merging and splitting that I could not find in guidelines prior.
Added new section on overviews that I could not find in guidelines prior.
Added new section on disambiguation that I could not find in guidelines prior.
Added new section on categorization that I could not find in guidelines prior.

This guideline was subject to a large amount of additions, the majority of which would generally be considered positive. The only problem is that there was no official discussion that I could find for most of the additions. I suggest the non-ratified changes be removed until full discussion and vote can be made to change the guideline in compliance with policy.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - I would add "Descriptions should be clear and precise; speculations or uncertain facts should be avoided." changed to "Descriptions should be clear and precise, and speculations or uncertain facts are not allowed." Uncertain facts can be interpreted very widely so that a character speculating on something could be read as an "Uncertain fact" (even though its certain that they said it) and should be reversed to the previous wording. Agent c (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Fallout canon[]

24 Oct 2020 - Adopted by vote ; Subsiquent revisions to links, explanation of precedence corrected (suggets FNV takes precedence but suggets only F2 does), reference correction
8 Nov 2020 - Ghoul example added to how disputes are resoled by future games
17 Nov 2020 - References changed, reorg of tactics issues
7 Dec 2020 - References update
17 December 2020 - Substantive change - changes from "Supplementary Canon" to "Supplementary sources", "Dependent Canon" to "Dependent sources". Released games established as the only source of canon. Non canon set to explictly non canon statements. Icon change. Reference/quote added. Typos fixed.
18 Dec 2020 - Expansion of only games are canon statement, reference added, grammar
23 Dec 2020 - Formatting, Links
26 Dec 2020 - Minor wording changes, grammar, Fallout 2d20 added
29 Dec 2020 - Fallout shelter online, removed. References for Fallout shelter court cases added, declaring it non canon, then a dependent source
30 Dec 2020 - Referencing instructions adjusted. Appearst o be a minor technical change.
5 Jan 2021 - Layout and verify change.
21 Jan 2021 - Remove duplicate of F2 strategy guide.
28 Jan 2021 - Typo
31 Jan 2021 - Icon change, minor layout
3 Feb 2021 - Category change (Fallout games, to Fallout Lore)
6 Feb 2021 - Substantive change - In referencing section "Anything that is not part of core canon should be referenced with the following, replacing" changed to "Anything that is not canon should be referenced with the following format". New referencing information added. " All non-game sources are commentary or additional information that is not canon until included in a released game." changed to "All non-game sources, commentary, or additional information are categorized as non canon unless included in a released game." Van buren examples moved. "Non canon" category changed to "non continuitiy", referencing then removed to transclude it instead.
15 Feb 2021 - Mariposa Mutants changed to just mutants with link removed.
20 Feb 2021 - Substantive Change - Restoration of "other sources" from "Non Canon" and changing "non continuity" to "no canon"; Page protected. Added source (origins of Fallout) and further detail on bible. Edits to bring shelter online with shelter.
21 Feb 2021 - Other sources chnged to non binding sources, edits to support this change.
23 Feb 2021 - Shelter being updated included, expansion on Shelter online. "Character cameos and certain narrative details may not be taken at face value." changed to "Bethesda have not explicitly commented on its canonicity status." Page moved to Fallout Wiki namespace (Vote cited). Category change from "Fallout Lore' To "Policies and Guidelines". Core canon term explained. Protection removed.
25 Feb 2021 - Added link to forum vote. Conflicts section heading moved, and "References from a more recent releases will override information from an earlier release" added, this appears to becorrecting an error and restating existing claims. References. Some minor rewording "The general idea is to provide a comprehensive overview of a subject drawing on all available sources, while clearly identifying their origin to allow users to identify what's binding for the current IP holder and what's not." added, reuse reworded. Troll Edit and reverted. ". When used as a reference in articles, information sourced from these titles is to be marked [Non-canon]" as a rule of thumb." added. Anchor for re use, reword tactics to remove disregarded claim but not reference. Games changed to media in non canon. Dates added for non canon game. Fallout 4 BIS and Fallout PS added to cancelled games
26 Feb 2021 - minor formatting
10 Mar 2021 - Conflicts on GNN and Myron added.
11 Mar 2021 - "which, while the Bible is not canon itself, gives a useful developer's perspective. Removed and readded. Reword non canon. Games change to content. Formatting/layou. Minor change on developer perspective/commentary. Referencing Substantive change on Cut and bugged content. Bible Clarification
24 Mar 2021 - Referencing, Internal documents
25 Mar 2021 - referencing corrections
26 Mar 2021 - referencing corrections
29 Mar 2021 - referencing corrections
27 April 2021 - referencing corrections, layout
21 May 2021 - Typo
4 June 2021 - Substantive Change and Reverted x2 - Tactics declared Semi canon on an unlinked live stream, prevous not canon status removed. Protected.
14 June 2021 - Minor word change
27 July 2021 - Fallout 2D20 changed to Fallout: The Roleplaying game
20 Aug 2021 - Release dates changed. Core Canon changed to canon Referencing rules changed. Substantive Change - Supplementary sources changes, Many sections removed. Conflicts section removed. Line between non cannon ans upplementary cannon effectively removed. Removal of the One man, and a crate of puppets comic.
28 Aug 2021 - Removal of explicitly including sub documents of F2 and F4 manual as being part of the manual.
20 Sep 2021 - Substantive change - Some minor rewording, dependent sources removed entirely. Non game contrinutions and sources removed. Remaining conflicts section removed. Bugged and cut content section removed.
3 Oct 2021 - Image name change
12 Oct 2021 - "Supplementary content" term removed formm non canon
28 Oct 2021 - Fallout playstation removed as "no citation" (no "Citation Required" template was present).
2 Nov 2021 - Link update.
11 Nov 2021 - link update
12 Nov 2021 - Non Canon changed to Non and Semi Canon
13 Nov 2021 - Reverted, typo
13 Jan 2022 - References and release dates removed. Some references added. Layout changes
13 Feb 2022 - Removal of BIS' Fallout 4 idea removed, transcluded policy section
17 Feb 2022 - Removal of the link to the policy vote (duplicated in the overview template). Title of Policy changed, background statement changed to "Nukapedia" rather than "Fallout wiki"
21 Feb 2022 - Substantive change "This should not be confused for official canon arbitration. The owner of the intellectual property decides which content to use and consider canonical, and many of the items included in this category have never been explicitly said to be "non-canon." However, the wiki uses this classification system for ease of content categorization, and references official sources for justification of this categorization." added but reverted.
24 Feb 2022 - Change intro text. Page protected.
11 March 2022 - Layout changes, title returns to Canon policy.
2 May 2022 - Protection removed.

Suggested action: Replace, or revert to policy as at 24 October 2020, with votes to adopt the substantive changes. Agent c (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Image policy[]

With the exception of the games template and two shortcut templates, which do not seem to have any reasoning behind removal, the sole material change was to add the highlighted (mine) text to "Images should have a descriptive name in the format [Game abbreviation][Content of image][Detail] such as FO76 Foundation signage.png.". I can find no corresponding discussion/forum to support adding that as policy, no matter how good of an idea it is. I suggest changing the sentence to "Images should have a descriptive name, e.g. following the format [Game abbreviation][Content of image][Detail] such as FO76 Foundation signage.png." as this is a clarification with a suggestion, rather than a directive. Otherwise a formal policy addition forum should be made.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review, no further comment Agent c (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Notable loot policy[]

With the exception of the removal of the games and shortcut templates, all changes to this page appear to be simple clarifications, text format changes, punctuation and grammar changes, updating links and the like. I see no material additions, subtractions or other changes. Recommend replacing the games and shortcut templates. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - No further comments. Agent c (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline[]

I can not find any related votes for the addition of the non-canon sources guideline in the linked policy votes on the page.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - No further comments Agent c (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue[]

There appear to be a few small parts of the proposed guideline that did not make it into the final published version. I suggest the full text of the proposal voted on be added.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sections on "Longer dialogues" removed. Other than that no further comments Agent c (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Non canon[]

I can not find any related votes for the addition of this guideline in the linked related policy votes on the page. It also does not seem to match the canon policy that was adotped in 2020.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Appears to have been created out of nothing. Delete. Agent c (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes[]

There appear to be a few small parts of the proposed guideline that did not make it into the final published version. I suggest the full text of the proposal voted on be added.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review - "Terminal Entries" did not land, most of proposal didn't land either. Agent c (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Publications[]

There appear to be a few small parts of the proposed guideline that did not make it into the final published version. I suggest the full text of the proposal voted on be added.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review - Draft only refers to game guides. Revert to voted version. Agent c (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images[]

There appear to be a few small parts of the proposed guideline that did not make it into the final published version. I suggest the full text of the proposal voted on be added.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review - THis appears to be a merging of Images with part of the holotapes/notes. Revert to voted version. Agent c (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:User conduct guideline[]

While there were a number of changes to this guideline, the number of material changes was relatively small. A lot of reordering was done, but for the most part the reordering didn't exhibit much loss of fidelity of the original wording of the guidelines. I'll detail those that I did find:

In general, if someone reverts an edit you made, you should not re-add it without reaching a consensus on the article's talk page. was removed from "Do not edit war".
Under construction: This template is placed at the top of articles currently undergoing work by another user. Editors should not edit articles with the under construction template by without first communicating and receiving permission from the user. was added. I can not find any forum vote for the addition of this in the guideline.
A couple of properly voted on additions were made, edit summaries and the plagiarism policies were added in full.
"Don't spam", "Don't flame", "Don't be rude" and "Be readable" sections were removed from the Talk, Forum and Blog pages section.
An entire section on blocking was added, but all the content here seems to be in line with established policies already in place, with the exception of adding "Editing on behalf of banned users", which I can find no forum vote to support its addition.

I suggest leaving the additions in place with the exception of the additions that were not codified by vote and putting those up for discussion at a later date to add, and re-adding any phrases that were deleted.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review. Also seems to be a reference to using discussion boards for general chat rather than talk pages, which arguably could be a substantive change, but I'd argue it wasn't and was just explaining what you should do instead of running foul of existing guidelines. "User talk pages are covered by the edit war policy. They may be deleted at the request of the user they belong to." appears new. Plagarism policy seems to be merged in but unclear where from so unable to verify content. Agre with conclusions. Agent c (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fallout Wiki:Voting regulations[]

Change	Removal	Addition	Notes
Removed phrase outlining who and how polices and guidelines may be changed.	Any editor is free to edit policies and guidelines to improve clarity and readability. However, changes to the actual content or meaning should only be done with community consensus.		This may be stated other places, such as the policy intro template, but there are minor working differences in each place.
Replaced section detailing how to create a forum to change or adopt new policy	To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum and at least ten votes are required for it to be valid; a simple majority is sufficient to pass. Voting requirements for those wishing to participate are that they must have a registered account, and have made at least one edit prior to the start of the vote.	The procedure for proposing new policies or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the Forum:Wiki discussion space. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, a vote will be called in the [[Forum:Wiki proposals and applications]] space. In lieu of a discussion forum, minor policy addendums can be discussed at Meeting of the Minds. The vote must run for one week minimum.	Removed the 10 vote quorum stipulation and simple majority rule.
Moved previous edit requirement to list		* Users must have a registered account. * Users must have made at least one edit or discussions post prior to the start of the vote.	Addition of discussion post when not previously there but was in practice already.
Removed section on vetos and decrees.	The administrators may veto a policy; this should only be done sparingly and for valid reasons. Aside from the normal procedure, the administrators may "decree" policies or guidelines. This should only be done with consensus among administrators and in cases where community consensus cannot be reached but a policy or guideline is needed. Of course, changes to decreed policies and guidelines can be suggested by anyone through the procedure detailed above.
Replaced the quorum and simple majority rules after new forum.		* Ten (10) votes are required to meet quorum on all forum votes. * A simple majority is sufficient to pass.	This was removed in a previous edit, and a new forum was made to put back in what was already policy.

Proposed solution: revert all text to previous version. Keep the subpage.

Peer review complete. The MOTM potentially replacing discussion phase or being used for "minor" addendums is not covered by a vote that I can see, and is potentially the source of much of these "changes" . Addendums however are additions, not removals, and if the rule was never agreed by the existing process, any change made under this ground is void ab initio. Concur on suggested action. Agent c (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Depreciated policies and guidelines[]

This consists of two policies:

IRC - I think we can safely say that custom and practice has superceeded this, and no formal investigation is neccessary
Video - As this related to all video on the wiki, putting this into depreciated does need to be confirmed

Agent c (talk)

Category:User rights guides[]

There are four pages in this category that appear to be proto tool explanations and best practice guides in construction. As they are incomplete and are marked with templates indicating that they're under construction, I think we can safely assume they have not been correctly adopted. Although I can seen an arguable case as to why they might not strictly be speaking a policy, they do try to explain good practice to some level so to me would fall over the line as to needing to be adopted by the community, and are thus an "orphan policy". Agent c (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Review complete[]

The policy and guideline review portion of this project is complete and all policies have been restored as best as possible to their previously ratified form including as many allowed grammar/styling/link edits as possible.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ban Review Extension[]

This extension looks at Wiki Bans performed and seeks to establish if they involved rules that were unratified.

Scope[]

The project will look first at the most recentl 100 bans prior to 1 May and establish if there is a need to go further based on that sample.

Discord bans will not be looked at as the behaviour rules completely changed, which would neccessitate all going into the red category. Establishing if the ban would have been valid under the adopted ruleset is beyond the scope of the project.

Process[]

Each ban will be looked at and sifted into one of the following categories:

Red - The direct reason for the ban is a rule that was not correctly adopted.
Amber - The direct reason for the ban is a rule that was correctly adopted, but the circumstances around the ban involved rules that were not correctly adopted (eg - the user was banned for edit warring, but involved edits that did not not comply with an incorrectly adopted rule)
Green - There are no unadopted rules in play.
Black - Ban is based on things that are not rules in either version.

Edit: Additional category

Presumed Green - The ban reason as stated either in the log or the talk page was for a green reason, however no data is available to determine what the circumstances were.

Although comments will be made where it is felt appropriate by the reviewer, the presence of Red/Amber/Green should not be taken as being accepting that the ban was fair, appropriate, or that best practices were followed. The purpose of the review is to determine if undapoted rules were in play, not to scrutinise past admin actions.

Sample[]

9 March 2022 user:Swagdinh (Disrupting community interaction: Old post, just reported by a user. Should have been caught by mods years ago, but was not.)
1. Not assessed. Only posts are from January 2016. If this was a post that triggered the ban then there's a problem - The Discussions Forum rules were not added to policy until Feb 2016, which would make this BLACK. Agent c (talk)
8 March 2022 user:9caatz (changed inappropriate username)
1. Unban Agent c (talk)
5 February 2022 user:Skorch (Adding unsourced information despite multiple warnings from several staff, disrupting community interaction)
1. Duplicate Agent c (talk)
21 January 2022 user:Themystery (Removing content from pages: Continues to blank talk page, insulting others. Swore I issued this ban a week ago.)
1. Duplicate Agent c (talk)
21 January 2022 user:Themystery (Insulting other editors: Continued aggresive behavior, including telling folks to floop themself. - https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Shaun_(synth)?curid=499687&diff=3684809&oldid=3672955 // Extended original block to their talk page, as they continue to blank it in violation of our user conduct guidelines.)
1. Duplicate Agent c (talk)
13 January 2022 user:Themystery (Insulting other editors: Continued aggresive behavior, including telling folks to floop themself. - https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Shaun_(synth)?curid=499687&diff=3684809&oldid=3672955)
1. Not assessed. This appears to be a continued situation from previously Agent c (talk)
5 January 2022 user:Raptormoses (Misuse of talk page/ Fabricating screenshots to implicate staff members in doxxing of users, impersonating an admin, being a colossal dick
1. Not assessed. Appears to be a restatement of a ban outside of the assessed period. Agent c (talk)
25 December 2021 user:Findabair
1. Admin Test. Agent c (talk)
25 December 2021 user:Findabair (Admin 101 - Can sysops block themselves...likely yes...only one way to find out!)
1. Admin Test. Agent c (talk)
18 December 2021 user:Sigmund Fraud (Disrupting community interaction: Disrupting community interaction, critically the forum voting process, and ongoing, senseless targeting of another user.)
1. Duplicate
11 November 2021 user:Overseer X (escalating chat after asking users for personal information. Did not stop after being asked twiced (https://discord.com/channels/356827678063460352/594111162963066900/908157731389726730), claimed all of it was a joke. Not the first time this has happened according to talk page)
1. Duplicate
4 November 2021 user:Overseer X (Abusing multiple accounts: Still has not declared alt account, IcyMystic. No update to page history on original account or alt account. Multiple talk page messages left on both accounts.)
1. Duplicate Agent c (talk)
3 November 2021 user:LovinglyGaslight
1. unban Agent c (talk)
31 October 2021 user:DauntlessX (Abusing multiple accounts: Undeclared Alternate Account of Intrepid)
1. Duplicate Agent c (talk)
28 October 2021 user:Laat the Survivor (to match ban on main account)
1. Duplicate
20 October 2021 user:OO Plumb Oo (Disrupting community interaction: User is upset they were warned about racism, homophobia. Was told to stop derailing threads, but continued to do so.)
1. Duplicate

Green and Presumed Green[]

28 April 2022 user:Bigman4000 (Removing content from pages)
1. Green. Straight forward Vandalism. Agent c (talk)
14 April 2022 user:Sans gaeming talk (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed Green. No Data, but green reason. Agent c (talk)
12 April 2022 user:Devastating Dave-fduser (Insulting other editors: Insulting others on user page)
11 April 2022 user:Topeka-guy (Disrupting community interaction: Spamming after being told to stop)
1. Presumed green. Edit not avail, and no ban notice. No data available.
2 April 2022 user:Topeka-guy (Disrupting community interaction: Continuing to spam after being told to stop)
1. Green. I don't see the warnings, or the spam, but the rule applied isn't a new one. Agent c (talk)
29 March 2022 user:Dušan Đaković (Disrupting community interaction: Constant spamming of memes in the feed, was already told to stop)
1. Presumed Green. No Data Available. However appears to be discussions user and these rules had no significant changes. Agent c (talk)
25 March 2022 user:Thebreadman69420 (Disrupting community interaction: Joined wiki, said they were here for express purpose of causing trouble.)
1. Presumed Green. No Data Available. However appears to be discussions user and these rules had no significant changes. Without context its hard to say if this was a joke or not. Agent c (talk)
24 March 2022 user:Angelsofdeath98
1. Green. This appears to be user insults. Not sure if I agree with the call to call it an insult. No data on what provoked it that might move it into the Amber category. Agent c (talk)
24 March 2022 user:Disappointed in the staff (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed Green. No edit is available that demonstrates Nonsense/Gibberish being added, but that would be a green reason. Agent c (talk)
23 March 2022 user:Boopooop
1. Presumed green. No reason given, there was a removal of information that the person claimed was "False", but it was referenced, so likely vandalism. Agent c (talk)
23 March 2022 user:WoodyWoodpeckerPro360 (Advertising)
1. Green, Advertising would be bannable. the reasoning says continued, but only one is visible which is using his own youtube as a reference which I wouldn't call advertising per se. Agent c (talk) 21#38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
21 March 2022 user:blocked U no a dar (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed Green. That would be a green reason, but no data is available beyond the block log.Agent c (talk)
8 March 2022 user:Carmph (Insulting other editors)
1. Green, the edit summary messages are clear. Agent c (talk)
26 February 2022 user:Sebbers1000 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed green. That is a green reason, but no data is available. Agent c (talk)
20 February 2022 user:AeneousPark5323 (Removing content from pages)
1. Green, Clear vandalism. Agent c (talk)
19 February 2022 user:9caatz (inappropriate nickname, instructed to change via talk page)
1. Green. This is longstanding. Agent c (talk)
10 February 2022 user:Yoroxay (Advertising: spam bot)
1. Presumed green. Its a green reason, but no data is available. Agent c (talk)
9 February 2022 user:Ultrturnos (Insulting other editors)
1. Green. Vandalism Agent c (talk)
4 February 2022 user:RIADISAMIR30 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green, Vandalism Agent c (talk)
30 January 2022 user:Alexander Whittaker (Sockpuppetry: Undeclared alt of Eston Whittaker. User refused to declare.)
1. Green, I see an agreement to do so on the 20th, and then nothing. That said, the reason is green, an there's no unadopted rule engaged. Agent c (talk)
30 January 2022 user:Eston Whittaker (Sockpuppetry: Was warned about his undeclared alt, would not declare. Standard progression to perma.)
1. Socks are green Agent c (talk)
21 January 2022 user:Waleed20079 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green, no issues. Agent c (talk)
21 January 2022 user:Themystery (Removing content from pages: Wiping talk page, insulting others. Swore I already banned this one.)
1. Green. This appears to be insults following an argument following the capitalisation policy, but those appear to be valid policies. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:ENGLAND HAZ STOLEN OUR YOUNG (Porn)
1. Presumed green. Porn is bannable, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:Pete Carpenter (Porn)
1. Presumed green. Porn is bannable, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:ClickHereForHotWhiteTitts (Porn spam)
1. Presumed green. Porn is bannable, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:TheJeremyKyleShow (Spam porn)
1. Presumed green. Porn is bannable, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:Sandy Clegane (Disrupting community interaction: Spamming porn)
1. Presumed green. Porn is bannable, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:De Wanna Wanga (Disrupting community interaction: Repeat breakages of /d guidelines #5 and #6. Given notices for misusing report function, mini-modding, arguing with mods, failing to keep posts on-topic and refused moderator requests. Then made a duplicate thread after original was locked. 1 week ban issued.)
1. Presumed green. The discussions rules have seen no siginficant changes. No data available. Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:Itchypirate (Insulting other editors: Came right back from a ban for insulting people to do it again and harass mod who gave first ban.)
1. Presumed green - this is a green reason, but no data is available. Agent c (talk)
18 January 2022 user:Emily5592 (Advertising)
1. Presumed green - this is a green reason, but no data is available. Agent c (talk)
17 January 2022 user:Fattubby (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: cross wiki harassment, as per Mara's edit summary on his talk page)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
16 January 2022 user:Gx240 (Insulting other editors)
1. Green - Insulting other editors is a green reason. I don't accept that what was put in the edit summary is "insulting other editors" but it is abuse of the edit summary. There's no other edits on that date if this relates to another action. Agent c (talk)
15 January 2022 user:Itchypirate (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)
1. Presumed Green. No data available Agent c (talk)
14 January 2022 user:Stick of medicine (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Told a Discussions Moderator to go f###### themselves. Guidelines #1 and #5 breached. Three day ban issued.)
1. Presumed green. That would be a green reason, but no data. Agent c (talk)
13 January 2022 user:Doran'sThighs (added gag pic to article, haha but no)
1. Green, Vandalism. Agent c (talk)
10 January 2022 user:Tinatan9991 (Advertising)
1. Green, Vandalism. Agent c (talk)
4 January 2022 user:De Wanna Wanga lol (Disrupting community interaction: Bio breaks /d guidelines #2 and #7, as well as FANDOM ToU. Ban is perma alongside checks under standard ban escalation. User is banned until bio is changed.)
1. Green. Can't see all the circumstances, but the other posts around it seem to confirm that its not related to an un auth policy. Agent c (talk)
29 December 2021 user:Ratsex6969 (Unacceptable username)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
25 December 2021 user:RIADI SAMIR203 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
22 December 2021 user:YeIsNo1 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
21 December 2021 user:Anminh09 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
20 December 2021 user:Sphincter (Insulting other editors: Asked to not call others idiots, instead called them cancerous idiots)
1. Presumed Green. Agent c (talk)
16 December 2021 user:6611018310yfdfghhgfgh (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
14 December 2021 user:Ashwinharry7 (Advertising)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
14 December 2021 user:This be like (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages: Deleting forum, spamming trash)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
12 December 2021 user:Elijah-The-First (Removing content from pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
6 December 2021 user:SirXyonder (Insulting other editors)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
2 December 2021 user:Minhhang12 (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
26 November 2021 user:Syfeye (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
25 November 2021 user:Ludwig the Rape Horse (Unacceptable username)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
20 November 2021 user:Knife Maker (Disrupting community interaction: User broke Rules 1, 5 and 6 of the Discussion Guidelines and User Conduct on assumption of good faith. User received one warning (a general warning applied to all participants) on one thread, and two on another before being banned.)
1. Green as discussions rules have not changed. Agent c (talk)
20 November 2021 user:Suckthispeepee89 (inappropriate username)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
17 November 2021 user:This be like(spam on forum vote, second warning)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
15 November 2021 user:Sigmund Fraud(Disrupting community interaction: racially inappropriate comments, persisting after /d mod warning)
1. Green. /d rules have not changed. Agent c (talk)
12 November 2021 user:AIIahREAL (blanked page, vandalism)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
12 November 2021 user:Guesswhosagain123 (Sockpuppetry: Continued alts to make edits akin to vandalism)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
10 November 2021 user:Radar1232123 (On the 20th October 2021, user received a warning for posting several inappropriate memes/pictures that broke Discussions guidelines (moderators, including myself, deleted three posts with multiple memes). User acknowledged the warning and apologised, and has proceeded again (10th November 2021) to post one of the same memes and an additional one alongside it that also breaks Discussions guidelines. After deliberating with Discussions moderators, this user is receiving a 3-day ban.)
1. Green. /d rules have not changed. Agent c (talk)
4 November 2021 user:IcyMystic (Abusing multiple accounts: Overseer X still has not declared this alt account. No update to page history on original account or alt account. Multiple talk page messages about this left on both accounts.)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
31 October 2021 user:DauntlessX (Abusing multiple accounts: Undeclared Alternate Account of Intrepid)
1. Green, however, I understand there are questions about the truth of this. Agent c (talk)
26 October 2021 user:This be like (Disrupting community interaction: Quit the spam)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
26 October 2021 user:TheLaatSurvivor (Inflammatory behavior and ban baiting)
1. Green, but see also 28 October. After being told they behave they have nothing to worry about and they then having things dreddged up from the past to justify a perma ban in the present. This presents an intrest of justice issue where essentally grounds were constructed to justify a ban. Agent c (talk)
26 October 2021 user:Emliy famliyemliore (racial slur)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
25 October 2021 user:Emliy famliyemliore (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed green. It could be a duplicate but the reasoning is different. No data available on any other edit. Agent c (talk)
21 October 2021 user:BillyNegroftw (Insulting other editors)
1. I'd call it more vandalism than insulting editors, but green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Road Warrrior-NCR Patriot (Sockpuppetry)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:ShellTurtleGay (Disrupting community interaction)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Micheala 93 (Sockpuppetry)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Kenneth P Anarchy (Sockpuppetry)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Slendermun (Sockpuppetry: And another one)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Special Project 1 (Sockpuppetry: Another sockpuppet, and now started spamming too)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Mick Grimes (More of the same)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Katie The dick hating pedafile (Sockpuppetry: More of the same)
1. Presumed green, no data available. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:AnarchyToCome (and so it goes on)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:MickMcDick (Sockpuppetry)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:BlueWidow2004 (And again)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Calm Anarchy (Sockpuppetry: And it keeps going)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Derpdevil (And again)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:PeterLargeDink (And so on and so forth with more of the same)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Dust and Blood (More of the same)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Starved for help (Sockpuppetry: And yet another alt)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:RedDeadBellend (Sockpuppetry: And yet another alt)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:TokeAlot (Sockpuppetry: Another alt of Oo Plumb oO)
1. Presumed green. No Data available Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:OO Plumb Oo (Disrupting community interaction: User is upset they were warned about racism, homophobia. Was told to stop derailing threads, but continued to do so. Made infinite after 5 or 6 alts made to circumvent and insult.)
1. Green. Relates to discussions behaviour ,these rules have not changed.
20 October 2021 user:U have a chubby faced wife (Automatically blocked by abuse filter. Description of matched rule: Dyre's fan club)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Fox4News (Sockpuppetry: User continuing on.)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Goldyy1 (Advertising)
1. Presumed green. No data available, but this is a green reason. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Old Roosterteeth (Sockpuppetry: Continuing on)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:The Dyre wolf guy (Sockpuppetry: More of the same)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Wolf the dyre (Sockpuppetry: Continuing issue.)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:Someone will be upset (Insulting other editors: Continued use of alts after ban)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
20 October 2021 user:The Dyre Wolf is a virgin (Insulting other editors: Someone is upset.)\
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
19 October 2021 user:Johnnyboy123450 (alt of Coolsman99, several others)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
19 October 2021 user:Greenyguy123 (alt of Coolsman99, several others)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
19 October 2021 user:Jsoh12345 (alt of Coolsman99, several others)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
19 October 2021 user:Johsau123 (alt of Coolsman99, several others)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
19 October 2021 user:JSHO12345Coolguys (ban evasion, alt of coolsman99/greatsman69s)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
18 October 2021 user:Coolsman99 (ban evasion, alt of JSHO12345Coolguys)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
18 October 2021 user:Dgbhnsjashdghnjs (Removing content from pages)
1. Green Agent c (talk)
15 October 2021 user:AZ-500 (Advertising)
1. Presumed Green, no data available, green reason. Agent c (talk)
15 October 2021 user:Brandon Jessup (Disrupting community interaction: Spamming nonsense in multiple threads)
1. Presumed Green, no data available, Discussions rules have not changed. Agent c (talk)
13 October 2021 user:Lukeawsomeness2 (Disrupting community interaction: Edit warring, vandalism by way of ignoring weapons info policy)
1. Green. This is very longstanding real world weapons content. Wouldn't call it vandalism however. Agent c (talk)
9 October 2021 user:EDOWROBERT (Insulting other editors)
1. Green. Its not insulting other editors, its vandalism. Agent c (talk)
6 October 2021 user:Selena21111 (Advertising)
1. Presumed green. Green reason, no data. Agent c (talk)
2 October 2021 user:DogConsent (homophobia, racial slurs)
1. Presumed Green or Green No data on date, but had done this before in September without action being taken.
2 October 2021 user:Greatsman69s (ban evasion, alt of Coolsman99)
1. Socks are Green. Agent c (talk)
1 October 2021 user:Escapade11 (Disrupting community interaction: Spamming nonsensical comments)
1. Presumed green, no data available, but vandalism is green. Agent c (talk)
28 September 2021 user:Vape Street Coquitlam BC (Advertising)
1. Presumed Green, Vandalism is green, no data Agent c (talk)
23 September 2021 user:Burgahguy (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green, Vandalism. Agent c (talk)
19 September 2021 user:AssholeTed (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green, Vandalism. Agent c (talk)
18 September 2021 user:NJMBrown (Sockpuppetry)
1. Green, if it is a sock. But it doesn't look like a typical sock. No warnings or links to other accounts. Agent c (talk) - edit I'm told this is sole
16 September 2021 user:Albertwillsson (Advertising: Advert account. Wants us to know about the industrial generators being sold.)
1. Presumed green. No edit data, but advertising is green. Agent c (talk)
15 September 2021 user:Webdesigndev (Advertising: some sad ish if this is your marketing strategy)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)
14 September 2021 user:Steve7411 (Advertising)
1. Presumed green, no data, green reason. Agent c (talk)
14 September 2021 user:Dcfvgbhjnkml;ljnbhvgcx (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Presumed green, no data, green reason. Agent c (talk)
14 September 2021 user:Shovethoseredirectsbackupyourass (inappropriate username)
1. Green, however this ban has issues in duration and/or lack of talk page notice instructing how to change username. Agent c (talk)
10 September 2021 user:The Deep End Drummer Cadence (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)
1. Green. Agent c (talk)

Amber[]

12 April 2022 user:Devastating Dave-fduser (Insulting other editors: Insulting others on user page)
1. Amber. The insult doesn't really seem to be insulting other editors as I knew it but that is out of scope. In any case, part of it refered to reversions which it may be aruged are based on being frustrated due to an unadopted content policy. Agent c (talk)
22 April 2022 user:Lordtyrannus2.0 (Disrupting community interaction: Continuous edit warring, multiple user conduct violations (see talk page))
1. Amber. Edit Warring, but based on a policy adopted incorrectly. Agent c (talk)
8 April 2022 user:Thirdpriestess (Insulting other editors: https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:Kdarrow?curid=595996&diff=3801193&oldid=3796039)
1. Borderline Green/Amber. This doesn't appear to be "Insulting other editors", it appears to be a rant about content removal. Agent c (talk)
7 April 2022 user:Lordtyrannus2.0 (Disrupting community interaction: Inserting the information back onto the page for which they were originally blocked due to edit warring.)
1. Amber. Edit Warring, but based on a policy adopted incorrectly. Agent c (talk)
1 April 2022 user:Lordtyrannus2.0 (Disrupting community interaction: Has repeatedly been told to utilize the article's talk page, instead continues to edit war with multiple users)
1. Amber. Edit warring, but based on unadopted policies being applied.
29 December 2021 user:Great Mara (Disrupting community interaction: Repetitive reverts, inappropriate comments in edit summaries)
1. Amber. There seems to be a lot here that could be reviewed that is out of scope; however, There's a significant change to the Capitalisation policy, and as such that puts this into amber. Mara however was attempting to enforce the correct version of the policy, the user was arugably following the unauthorised version. Agent c (talk)
29 December 2021 user:Themystery (Insulting other editors: There are infinitely more appropriate and productive ways to discuss capitalization standards, insulting others is not allowed under any circumstances)
1. Amber, counterpart to Mara's ban. Agent c (talk)
29 September 2021 user:Coolsman99 (repeat vandalism, counter-productive edit warring)
1. AMBER - Edit warring but canon policy was unadopted. Agent c (talk)

Red[]

5 February 2022 user:Skorch (Adding unsourced information despite multiple warnings from several staff, disrupting community interaction)
1. Red. If this was purely limited to conduct on the wiki, it would be amber - The information I can see isn't unsourced, its a disagreement on how to present that information which would be impacted by unadopted policies. I see no evidence of disrupting community action. I see no evidence of any warnings. On the talk page I see unilateral admin action being taken to remove a paramater from a template to resolve an editing dispute with a promise to readd it later. There is no block template.
2. However, much of this ban comes down to Discord conduct, which is an automatic red as these rules were not adopted correctly - both demonstrated in the messages and the agreement to lessen the ban after a discord mediation. In any case, discord bans do not in policy and should not transfer to the wiki.
3. The following claim, if true, is particularly troublesome "Trying to frame me simply going, "Hey, what's up? If you're not going to answer me, then I'm going to have to talk to the other admins about these queries" as "veiled threats" qualifies as bad faith behavior." considering that Skorch was also being encouraged to contact other admins.Agent c (talk)
20 January 2022 user:YTJaxJaguars16 (Disrupting community interaction: mirror discord ban, message ID /933556791080529950)
1. RED - Unadpoted rule (no mirror rule exists in the correct discord rules). Agent c (talk)
18 December 2021 user:Sigmund Fraud (Disrupting community interaction: Continued harassment, misuse of talk page following ban / Disrupting community interaction, critically the forum voting process, and ongoing, senseless targeting of another user.)
1. RED. Unauthorised change to be polite (Comments or content that is disrespectful or inciteful will be deleted and are grounds for blocking.). I'm not convinced this was a fair ban, or fair talk page removal, but that is beyond scope in any case. The saddest part is, part of his Kdarrow no vote, which was part of the justification for this ban, has been shown to be correct. Agent c (talk)
18 November 2021 user:Kittybright (Disrupting community interaction: Extended due to multiple chat bans, racist/homophobic slurs, insulting other editors, chronic toxic behavior)
1. Red. Wiki ban related to discord behaviour, transfering these was an unadopted rule. Agent c (talk)
15 November 2021 user:Brandon Jessup (Disrupting community interaction: sending porn links in both #the-vault-door and my dms)
1. Red. Wiki ban related to discord behaviour, transfering these was an unadopted rule. Agent c (talk)
28 October 2021 user:LovinglyGaslight(mirroring discord ban / toxic behavior, interrupting community interaction)
1. RED - Mirroring Discord bans is an unadopted rules. Agent c (talk)
24 October 2021 user:Achilleus-of-Thessaly (Insulting other editors: Insulted others after having been warned to stop)
1. Red. Ban seemingly based on unadopted modification to "be polite" (Comments or content that is disrespectful or inciteful will be deleted and are grounds for blocking.) Agent c (talk)

Black[]

11 November 2021 user:Overseer X ((CORRECTED) escalating chat after asking users for personal information. Did not stop after being asked twiced (https://discord.com/channels/356827678063460352/594111162963066900/908157731389726730), claimed all of it was a joke. Not the first time this has happened according to talk page)
1. BLACK - Wiki ban related to discord behaviour, transfering these was an unadopted rule which is red. Rights were removed for Inactivity which was a policy that did not exist on the date they were removed, and could not have been followed in time for Katy's statement. Katy's statement that they're refusing to reinstate rights appears to be related to those from before the inactivity policy, which would be ultra vires. These rights were removed incorrectly. Agent c (talk)
28 October 2021 user:TheLaatSurvivor (Inflammatory behavior and ban baiting, no ban escalations in the past, revelations that he was involved in the discord raid and intentionally posting provocative memes.)
1. See also the 26 October. Category BLACK. Ban is based on rules that do not exist in either version. Ban is also partially based on discord conduct which would be RED as the mirroring rule does not exist. Outside of the scope of the review - The evidence does not show purported actions that might be bannable, and even if they did, an expectation was already set that the user had nothing to worry about from the past if they behave right, yet something from 2019 was used as partial justification which has interest of justice/rule of law issues. I hate to say it, as I do not like this user, and I do not like their conduct. I would suggest this ban needs further review, as it is arguably void ab initio, and an exercise of power abuse. Agent c (talk)