Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-46091064-20200615220033/@comment-35000920-20200628014408

Hollowness wrote: Fandom is just a rebrand/rename, it isn't by default a right/mandate for fans. Fandom is/are Wikis, not a fans' rights site to do what they want and get ### warnings before action can happen- because one feel fans should be untouchable. The number of warnings doesn't matter, you just hope it's at least one.

Unhelpful edits hurt Wikis and is not meant to hurt fans when action is taken, it's a form of protection. Appeasing everyone who is being counterproductive and giving them infinite chances can hurt a wiki community. This doesn't mean people don't or won't take advantage of power but truly abusive admins can be voted out or reported to staff (and as mentioned staff are going to be reevaluating that process). But chances are if you ticket staff and it is not in their opinion abuse- it's really about you, your feelings or pride and not just the admins.

Some reasons admins might be strict or quick to block:
 * The Wiki has a history of bad or counterproductive editors disrupting their community.
 * You have a history of bad or counterproductive edits disrupting their community.
 * The Wiki is fairly large or small and minimal active admins who can help clean up bad edits or counterproductive edits.
 * Doing what is best for the Wiki, the Wiki's editors and the Wiki's fans/viewers can be 3 widely differently ways to run or balance a Wiki. That might mean making tough decisions that sometimes upset other admins, certain editors or some viewers.
 * Admins are done trying to talk to you or talking about the issue. You might not be done arguing but they are.
 * Block Spam first; assume good faith later. Sure we are suppose to assume good faith but almost anything that starts off as spam or spamming on a wall might be: block now; sort out later.
 * Raging, Ranting and Spazzing counteraction. An admin having to justify a long standing (or new) choice or decisions each time someone spazzes about it isn't how admin wants to spend their time- especially if they think the User isn't going to be receptive. They don't volunteer their time just to be insulted and abused either.

Do you still think that isn't good admin'ing or reasons?

Options when you conflict with a Wiki or it's admin(s):
 * Attempt to reconcile.
 * Leave (if you can't get along, just move on).
 * Contact staff with evidence of abuse.
 * Reach out to others in the wiki community for voting out a bad admin.
 * Wait, staff already said they are going to be taking a different stance on admin complaints after UCP is finished.

I say this as someone who has both gotten along and not gotten along with strict to IMO abusive admins and as an admin praised as amazing to accused of being abusive when IMO they are just a begrudged user who was upset they couldn't get their way. I think its good that they will make those changes regarding admin complaints. I understand where you're coming from. I supposed my issue is with how much power admins have. For example, banning an IP address is too invasive in my opinion. If you don't want someone invading the wiki, I do believe banning their username and associated email on file is a good way to go. But being allowed to ban an IP? I don't like that idea at all. Not to mention it punishes an entire housefold for the actions of one. That's like making you go to jail after your sister or brother stole. Its stupid.

And I'm sure people will say that people will just end up using someone else's account in the household. But people can do that anyway if they use a different IP at different places.

I do believe that if you take the time to create a wiki you should have the right to how it builds. At the same time, I think its a trap to allow people to make edits and set vague rules, only to ban them for stupid things. Things like this happen a lot. You may as well block everyone from making edits on your wiki. If a person is that concerned about the wiki being done a certain way, don't allow edits at all. That makes more sense to me than banning over every little stupid thing. Honestly that's a waste of time. I think that there should be guidelines for admins as well for what they can and cannot do.

Even if we are to vote out a bad one. If they replace them with another bad one then we end up with a cycle. That's why I say there needs to be fandom guidelines set up with regulations for how admins should conduct themselves and limitations on what they can and cannot do. Typically when it comes to the banning process.

I am the admin of two wikis myself. I understand what it means to want your wiki a certain way and not want it tainted. I just think methods of banning should be changed.