Thread:Sannse/@comment-25231652-20141018005058/@comment-25231652-20141018112110

Fobarimperius wrote: ~Boggy B~ wrote: My ban isn't a "local disagreement". After I decided to leave the wiki, and I changed my mind about that, he just banned me for no given reason. He also banned another user named Q*terplx without giving us any evidence backing up his reasons for banning him.

By definition this is a local disagreement To qualify as a local disagreement, it has to be something that affects one single wiki or a group of linked wiki's logistically. By this, no other wiki you visit is affected, the dispute is only limited to the given wiki and not on others, and while you are bringing your concern here to CC, it is not a CC problem. This is a local issue.

'Additionally, admins are entirely ''allowed to ban for no reason. Firstly, there is no provision in the ToU that states an admin is not allowed to do so. (1) Secondly, let me quote Sannse here: ''Maybe someone has been unfairly blocked. Or their perfectly good edits have been reverted. Or perhaps the wikia has developed a habit of excessively hostile conversations, with no chance of a careful and thoughtful idea being considered. Or maybe it's just one overly grumpy admin who keeps leaving rude wall messages. (2)'

''These are all situations that Wikia staff have been asked to jump in and sort out. And they are all situations where we have declined to do so, and pointed straight back at the community.''

This can show that there is no specific check or rule that removes an admins rights to place bans even if unwarranted, surprising, or otherwise unfair. As long as it is not a ToU situation, or a serious problem, it won't be intervened.

Staff would have their entire existence repurposed to handling disputes day in and day out if admins were constantly being checked by staff for every little action a user doesn't want. It wouldn't take long for wikia users to no longer want to be admins. After all, why bother being an admin at all on a volunteer website if a boss you don't even personally know can kick you out just because someone said they were mad and their block was unfair even if it was? Additionally, as Sannse has said, there are often two sides to every story. Very very rarely do people often set out with the sole purpose of being a terrible person. The road to evil, as they say, is paved with good intentions. The thing about evil though is it is subjective. What I view as bad, what Sannse views as bad, what you view as bad, and what Danuhau views as bad can be radically different and entirely unlike one another. This means our own personal bias (all decisions made by every person always have some level of internal bias attached) is connected to how we view situations. What you saw as a totally unfair situation, perhaps Danuhau saw as a positive act to finally remove a user he feels is upsetting a community. Maybe he did ban out of spite, maybe he did ban because he's just a jerk, and maybe he did ban just to make a ban or because he's entirely unfair. (3) That being said, maybe he didn't, and Staff, as they told me once before in an email I received before regarding a dispute, must assume both sides are right in every situation. In my interpretation, this would be because they would become Judge, Jury, and Executioner, being given the power to decide the call, make the call, and enforce the call, and meaning that the situation will be entirely dependant on the staff member you get, their mood, their bias towards these kinds of situations, and whether or not this is what they want to be doing right now or do not care that this is what they are doing. It may be possible that the exceptions that Sannse stated where intervention is would be your case, but this is highly doubtful since it doesn't appear from the search I did that Danuhau gets in too many arguments outside the ones between the two of you, and none of them are any farther than business styled communication with him keeping his speech professional and collected, even if it can be a tad too harsh..

~Boggy B~ wrote: I only want my block removed. I kept contacting Danuhau on his Message Wall and responded with something like "I'm busy" or "let me think about it". He obviously doesn't care. Now what, should I just give up and stay blocked on that wiki? There's only one other wiki I contribute to, but the Worms Wiki was always my home wiki. I want to return to that wiki. This may very well be your reality wanted or not. Danuhau is allowed to perform any action he wants on that wiki as long as he is not violating the ToU. His presence, active or not, is irrelevant as he still uses the wiki on a regular enough basis to still be considered on the wiki. His agreements or disagreements with you are also unrelated. All that matters is two things: If he is upsetting the community itself and causing unnecessary community problems which are not related to one specific user in specific instances, in which, with a wiki-wide community consensus, you can get it reveresed, or if he is breaking the ToU. '''If Danuhau does not allow you to return, and doesn't "care" as you said, then your only option is to continue trying to break this wall with your bare hands in vain, or moving on and hoping to find somewhere new. (4)''' 1. Yes, I already knew that, and I find it idiotic, honestly. They really need to work on the Terms of Use.

2. Yes, that's definitely the case.

3. Of course not. I never upset the community. Apparently I've been blocked for wanting to leave the wiki out of frustration, which was uncalled for.

4. That's what I'm going to do. I'll wait for Danuhau to remove my block someday. Meanwhile, I'll be contributing to another wiki.

I know this is a late reply, but I was a little busy.