Battle Cats Wiki

This page details guidelines that moderators of the wiki should follow.


  • Make sure to uphold the rules of the wiki. Also read the rules so you know what rules you need to uphold.
  • If wiki users break the rules, then give them a warning about what they have done wrong, and direct them to the relevant sections of the rules.
  • Make sure to be active and have fun! We want moderators to contribute to the wiki for fun, not out of some obligation to keep a role.


The purpose of content moderation is to ensure that the wiki maintains high standards of quality, and moderators and admins are simply trusted users given powers that help them do that more easily.

There are likely thousands of essays on Wikipedia about effective wiki management, but the main theme is collaboration: you need to work together with other people to improve the wiki's information. As much as you can, separate what you think is appropriate and think carefully about taking actions that are likely to offend users or be controversial.

One of the most important aspects of collaboration is the acceptance of consensus. This could be something directly written in the rules, such as not adding translations to Limited Content, or it could be something that the majority of active editors have agreed on, such as the plural form of Mr. being Messrs. When two users cannot agree on a certain topic, it is generally best to have other wiki editors chime in with their opinions on the subject. The outcome of such discussions should be respected by all users, including those on the non-consensus side of the disagreement.

Locking pages

See Battle Cats Wiki:Protected page for more information. Pages should be locked if:

  • There is an ongoing edit war on the page, in which users involved are not stopping to discuss the changes on message walls and come to either an agreement or a request for consensus from other wiki editors. The three-revert rule is a good rule of thumb for when to lock the page.
  • The page is a target of vandalism or otherwise edits that go against community consensus. If this is being done repeatedly by the same user a very short page lock (~24 hours should do) should be put in place and the user should be warned. If a single page is a persistent target by independent users, then it is probably best to set a permanent lock (e.g. on pages like Korea and Corona).
  • The page is important, such as high-traffic pages like the main page, high-usage low-maintenance modules/templates/images such as File:EnemiesAppearing0.jpg, or certain pages that shouldn't be messed with for obvious reasons, such as this one.

Some important notes about page protection:

  • The purpose of this wiki is collaboration! Absolutely do not protect something without a good reason and only protect it for as long as is necessary. Especially, do not protect a page based on an imagined problem: if you think something will happen if the page is left as is, but nothing has actually happened yet, then you really shouldn't be in a rush.
  • It is wise to occasionally review Special:ProtectedPages and Special:ProtectedTitles to see what pages are protected and if you can agree with the lock. If you find yourself looking at the page's history and not understanding the reasoning for the lock you may want to ask the protecting user, or remove it if you think the lock has overstayed its welcome.
  • Pages in the MediaWiki and User blog namespace, as well as personal CSS, JS and JSON files, have different default protection levels to other pages and should never be protected (with the exception of preventing the user who owns the blog from editing it).

Deleting pages


  • Any unused files, templates or categories that weren't created by a moderator. If they were created by a moderator, ask them about using it on a page.
  • Any fanmade content not in the user or user blog namespaces.
  • Vandalism pages.


  • The rollback right exists as an anti-vandalism tool. Do not use it as a fast undo: look into AjaxUndo if such a thing would genuinely be beneficial. Rollbacking an edit means it should be obvious to any user looking at the diff why the edit was rollbacked: either vandalism—including misinformation and explicit anti-consensus editing—or an edit so badly formed and unnecessary that it is difficult to even assume good faith.
  • Don't expect users to have read every single rule of the wiki, and especially don't expect them to know all of the unwritten rules. Be patient, assume good faith, and give people time to improve on their skills. Don't gatekeep!
  • One cool feature that content moderators and admins can do is patrol edits. This allows one moderator to look at an edit and, if it is clearly additive to the substance of the wiki, mark it as patrolled so that other moderators don't have to waste time on it! Be careful though, you don't want to patrol an edit you just skimmed over when a user who specialises in that area more might also be looking at recent changes.



  • Reflair posts as necessary. You may tell a user about the fact you had to reflair the post, either as a reply or as a separate message on their wall.
  • When you edit a normal page or a user blog, there is a checkbox for "Commenting". This toggles comment protection, so leave it as-is if you don't know what it does.
  • Try not to reveal non-public information to users who have broken rules.
    • If a user was reported, don't reveal who reported that user. If the reporter wants that information to be known, they should reveal it themselves rather than having a mod do it forcibly.
    • If messaging a user with screenshots of deleted posts, try to obscure the message "deleted by <user>". Who deleted or locked a post or thread is irrelevant to the fact that it warranted deletion or locking.

Locking Posts

  • If a post is the victim of a "necropost", then delete the necropost and all replies after it, then lock the thread.
  • If a post is devolving into an argument, spam, or going completely, irreversibly off-topic, but doesn't warrant deletion, then it should be locked. Posts in "News and Announcements" should always be locked, not deleted, if their time of relevant replies is over.

Deleting Posts

  • Posts breaking wiki rules should be deleted. If the post breaks one of the less obvious rules, such as the English-only rule, then either delete the post and message the user, or reply stating the rule and lock the thread.
  • Spam should be deleted. If a user's posts take up a significant chunk of posts when sorting by new, delete those posts and message the user about the rules.
  • Irrelevant replies should be deleted. Same for posts spreading misinformation.
  • Arguments that go beyond a simple disagreement should be deleted. It's completely normal for users to disagree on a wide array of subjects, from the best unit to the most influential film of the 20th century, but when users start hurling personal insults or going into blatant manipultation or toxicity, then these arguments should be forcibly calmed down.

Editing Posts

  • Posts should be edited in the cases of:
    • The title is misleading or inappropriate, but the content of the post doesn't warrant deletion. For example, a post titled "aaaaa" with content "How do I beat <x stage>" should be edited to change the title to something more relevant.
    • The post takes up too much space, such as being a textwall, a copypasta, or just a bunch of blank lines spammed. If there is nothing relevant contained in the post, then it should also be deleted after being edited.
  • Do not edit a post to reply to what was said in the post. Reply to the thread and ping the user who wrote that post you want to reply to, like anybody else would do.
  • You may edit a post in cases where it is obvious that the user wants or needs a moderator's help, for example if the user has tried and failed to ping AnonymousCrouton despite their best efforts. In the past, this also included replies that gave away personal information such as inquiry codes or emails, but now these should be edited then deleted due to the reply history feature.

Mass Post Deletion

Using the delete all feature should be restricted to extreme cases, such as where the user is:

  • Underage. This only applies while the user is underage: if it is found out later, once they are legally allowed to use Fandom, then this shouldn't be used.
  • Impersonation, specifically where the user's account makes the false claim (e.g. their username is "Chawesy"); if the user claims to be somebody they are not on a singular post then this post should be deleted and the user should be given a warning block rather than having all posts deleted.

Additionally, there are certain cases where using this feature on users who have a consistently high rate of delete-worthy posts may be acceptable. Always take into account the user's total post count as this action is extremely difficult to reverse: you don't want to be deleting years' worth of history for no good reason. Reasons include:

  • Scamming
  • Consistent, blatant toxicity
  • User harassment
  • Objective mass spam

User Bans & Appealing

If a user fills in the appeal form and messages an active admin, then they should be entitled to a fair and transparent discussion of their block. Discussions should take into account actions taken leading up to the block, the response given on the appeal form, and how long ago the block was. If administrators cannot completely agree, then relevant moderators should be involved in the discussion.

Whether a block appeal is accepted or denied, the main reasons or consensus should be stated publicly, including arguments, images and links. This doesn't just allow the user to know why they were accepted or denied, but also allows outside observers to gain an insight into the process and determine for themselves whether or not the result was justified.

User Promotion

Currently there is no formal process in place regarding user rights, promotions and demotions. Historically, this has been done by an announcement, leading to an application Google Form, where admins will decide the outcome of the applications.


Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. Administrator powers should be used to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the wiki's community.

If administrators disagree on an action they should discuss. The priority should be with the user whose point of view would be less destructive, such as if they disagree on a block the user should be left unblocked at least until the administrators come to an agreement.


The main action administrators are able to access is blocking users. In general:

  • Don't do blocks based on user request. If a user would genuinely benefit from being blocked for their wellbeing, then it is acceptable, but if a user wants to be blocked in cases where they could just not go on the website then they shouldn't be blocked.
  • Be reasonable about block times. Someone who put a smiley face on a unit page doesn't deserve an 11-year block; someone who has been repeatedly harassing and belittling users over an extended period of time shouldn't be given a mere 3-day block.

Block reasons and times

This is a general guide for block reasons and times, not the word of law. Administrators may choose to apply a block not within any of these times for any reason, and severity of punishment always depends on context.

  • indefinite - for underage users without given age
  • infinite - ban evasion, extreme amount of anything
  • 48 hours - warning 1, any minor offense
  • 60 hours - warning 2, any minor offense
  • 72 hours - warning 3, any minor offense
  • 1 week - spam, user harassment, posting nsfw/gore
  • 2 weeks - excessive/extreme spam
  • 1 month - excessive/extreme harassment of users
  • 3 months - excessive/extreme nsfw/gore
  • 6 months - excessive/extreme vandalism
  • 1 year - any above if excessive/extreme
  • other time - underage users with given age

Helpful links