User:Raidarr/sandbox

This guide is (clearly) far from finished, and should not be referred to.

The purpose of this guide is to get administrators on reception wikis up to speed with how wiki features work, how to use them responsibly, and how to handle user conduct in a way that won't cause intervention from global 'staff' (mainly Stewards or Global Sysops). This will be long and it's not really meant to be read all at once, only for topics you're interested in. But if you hold advanced rights you should have a basic understanding of all these principles. It will be written for admins, and later cover bureaucrats and other roles as well.

Sitenotices
In a developed reception wiki there will be a page called Template:SiteNoticeMessage. If it does not exist, you can create one with this template (as a high use template it should also be protected). It makes notices consistent to what reception wikis generally use. Substitution is often involved but is not actually necessary.

The template can be used to announce anything of importance in the wiki. I strongly suggest keeping it to more serious things or larger community events, and not just for whatever you want - certainly not to advertise whatever you personally like. It is traditionally signed by the admin who makes it. When the notice is stale or quite a lot of time has passed, it can be removed.

If a notice is added, always update MediaWiki:Sitenotice_id. This will make it appear even if notices were dismissed before. If you do not do this it will likely not get very far. The number must go up; add 1, save, and you're finished.

Warnings and blocks
In general the purpose of this is to solve the problem. These tools are not to flaunt authority, be punitive or end people you personally dislike. They're tools with impact that should achieve one of two things.
 * Give the user a chance to change what they're doing incorrectly, assuming good intentions where possible
 * End the users who've demonstrated no will to communicate, are simply vandals/LTA or have violated several clear warnings

Warnings should always be given first where possible, especially where the issue is minor (a one-off reversion of an admin's edit made for good reason, adding the wrong category to a blog, hot tempers). If the warning was clear and the user fails to respond and does it again, that is grounds for a final warning or a minor block as appropriate. Depending on the behavior from there the block can increase to being longer and sitewide - but, allowing talk page access as far as possible unless that becomes a storm of drama or abuse as well. Unless the second point above is reached (no cooperation, long record of delinquency along with a history of talk page warnings, or clearly just a vandal/troll/lta) blocks should only be up to 3-6 months. If it's not an emergency and you're looking at indefinite or think cross wiki is appropriate, consult someone with cross wiki admin rights (listed here) and/or with a second admin. If cross wiki, consult with a bureaucrat or as a bureaucrat, someone else. Blocks hold up far better when multiple people have looked at the problem and given their fresh take. The second opinion should be careful and play devil's advocate to see if the block reasons/warnings hold up well; if that second admin cannot be unbiased you should consult one who will be, or solicit the opinion of multiple through say, the Discord.

If this process is not followed properly, admins run the risk of being overridden by an admin/bureaucrat with more experience taking a fresh look themselves - at worst without a clear record, the user can appeal to Miraheze Meta and make a mess there, requiring a Steward's input. The point here is to make a clear case - correct the user, or let them dig their own grave so when they appeal you have plenty to point to as evidence.

Of course, if the user starts off vandalizing and uncooperative or is likely a 'returning customer' (see below), you can pretty much forget the above and eliminate them indefinitely on sight, reporting to Miraheze CVT as appropriate (cross wiki vandalism or a returning abuser). If unsure and you don't see anything redeeming to go back to the above on instruction/warnings (ie, they may just have poor English or have good intentions with bad execution), feel free to just block and bring it up to someone else to see if there is a larger issue.

Abusing multiple accounts
This is unfortunately common on the wikis. Certain admins have experience dealing with this and are the ones who should be looking over the case, but even they must be careful to have a solid suspicion (compare diffs, make a case why they're likely someone else), avoid confronting until you have backup review in case you are wrong (especially when the user's edits are innocent enough but still suspicious), and

In the case of confirmed abuse or simply entering with vandalism, the user should be immediately blocked where they are active (blocking them on every wiki you have rights is overkill and not needed) and reported to CVT. Generally a bureaucrat (DarkMatterMan and Raidarr in particular) knows what to do to get them handled globally.