Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-3184244-20200117005313/@comment-14250-20200123055539

I'm not really sure what % you would consider to be commonplace. If you mean less than a majority then I agree. I can't think of any particular figure to set a "more than x% complaints are valid" estimation. Given that I assume most admins are good admins, it would stand to reason that most people punished by admins deserve punishment.

Two factors skew this in both directions though:
 * those deserving punishment might avoid trying to appeal it, knowing they would lose, and just go on to make socks, so they would represent a % of appeals
 * conversely, those who do try to appeal, might over-represent their actual numbers, by having each of their socks file an appeals process

FANDOM in terms of priorities send from corporate shareholders may just care about bottom line (dat SEO) but they do have messaging to stay on-brand with to keep a good rapport with editors both because of their direct (they browse more than casual googlers) and indirect (maintain long-term quality to attract others) economic benefits. Going past that, I like to hope that Fandom employs idealistic staff who hopefully like to use their powers for good, when time permits. I hope that when they don't do so, it's more due to a full plate (need to prioritize other problems) than apathy. There are after all lots of helpful staffers who spend time doing stuff like helping to rename wikis.

Wouldn't a 'crazy admin' who over-blocks generate more tickets though? If there's any hole in that mechanism it's probably because abused newbies don't know about that appeals system. That's why in past years (or even present day) you see stumbling around asking for help in inappropriate places, like on other projects' wikis rather than community.