Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-233706-20150624014033/@comment-233706-20150627003905

Fobarimperius wrote: By assessing that such things as the "Why Bad Admins Aren't Removed" as wrong and 'refuted' automatically places this argument into a factual realm, which becomes entirely impossible.

What?

Fobarimperius wrote: 1. Most users who are slighted suffer from what is known as "Confirmation Bias", in that everything and anything ever said by that admin becomes an automatically damning effect against them, and that information that will reinforce your point is either ignored, or defined in ugly terms. For example, if an admin said "Please leave the chatroom", and you were mad, you could say "They hijack the chatroom, so they told me to leave the chatroom" when in reality all they meant was they needed a group admin conversation and you interrupted, so they politely asked you to leave.

No, this is not about anything like that. This is about badmins who delete comments out of comment sections, delete posts out of forums, and delete messages off people's own user pages, all because they don't agree with them.

Fobarimperius wrote: 2. Since most users who are slighted are also very upset, a second problem can arise known as the "Overconfidence Effect", a bias that is often found in individuals whom are upset, angry, or disturbed, who will assure with high belief that their interpretation of the events is absolutely accurate when in fact they are heavily tainted by emotion all because the individual's confidence in their statement outweighs the objective situation for a subjective truth.

Well when you take screenshots of a chat log that back up your stated grievances 100% that the badmin clearly showed bias against you, then it's safe to rule out this possibility.

Or in my case, people lied about something I wrote. I provided direct evidence that I didn't write what they claimed I wrote. And yet I was still blocked for half a year. Then about three weeks before that block was going to expire, I was blocked forever for creating a sock puppet account, which of course I never created, as checking my user history will prove.

So yes, when the user has documented FACTS proving their case, and the badmin punishes them anyway, that's when Wikia staff should step in and say, "Um... what are you doing?".

Fobarimperius wrote: 3. Every individual will interpret events differently. This is known as the "Rashomon Effect", wherein you could put ten people in the same situation and get ten totally different accounts that only share certain details. This is an extremely problematic situation in the real world as well, especially with eyewitness accounts who can argue multiple outcomes to the same situation with only certain details the same.

I understand, but again, this is where documented facts come into play.

Fobarimperius wrote: Without a solid comment trail on message walls, blogs, or comments, or even a chat bot, it becomes absolutely impossible to stop any sort of situation with 100% accuracy.

Which badmins can delete, right? So badmins can cover up their own rule breaking.

Fobarimperius wrote: If the Wikia Staff remove the angry admin, they may remove a totally justified admin. Then again, if they side with the admin, the User may have been totally justified. It's much safer to assume the User in question should just move on and sits in a minority.

It's much lazier. That's all. I'm not saying revoke the badmin's power indiscriminately. I'm saying look into the matter. It shouldn't be difficult. The staff would get a message saying something like, "I was blocked for something I never wrote", the staff member looks it up, confirms it, then agrees that yes the user was blocked for no reason. The wiki keeps track of all the necessary information.

Fobarimperius wrote: The reason for that is the absolutely numerous complaints this site receives on a regular basis. Admin emails. Chatmod/Admin message walls, Chat complains where someone jumps inot the chatroom and begins demanding the removal of a specific user, or, as you did, on forums. To investigate every single complaint with absolute certain accuracy would take so much time on the hands of Staff that they might as well forget maintenance altogether.

All of which will continue until the staff actually solves the problem. Tell me, is it quicker to post one notification to all wiki admins that any complaints about their behavior will be investigated, or is it quicker to keep replying to all the complaints with the same noninvolvement email? As soon as badmins realize that complaints about them will be investigated, they will cut it out. And after a few badmins get punished for breaking the rules, the rest will straighten out.

Fobarimperius wrote: Furthermore, Staff are subject to their own bias's as they are humans too. They may misinterpret a situation, and, while they are totally allowed to run this place as they want since they own it, obviously don't want to go down that road. On top of that, people often have issues with authority, and it isn't hard to imagine that a vast majority of individuals on the internet with the ability to say whatever they want with little to no real-world reprecussions will overstay their welcome.

And those cases are easy to see as well. Users who make a big deal out of nothing will clearly demonstrate this and will have no facts to support their claims.

Fobarimperius wrote: For every single admin who's ever been complained about to be a problem, wikia might as well just shut down all wiki's and run everything by themselves, which would be impossible.

That's an absurd extreme. Correcting one badmin won't cause that entire wiki to shut down.

Fobarimperius wrote: Now if the whole community complains, then it's obvious that the admin is a problem. It's no secret to anyone that that admin is upsetting everybody. However, if it's just one extremely angry user with a chip on their shoulder, getting angry at everyone who disagrees or generally just being angry and throwing a fit at the people 'siding with fascists', then it's safe to say that it's much better to wait for the storm to cool and see if anyone else complains over taking immediate rash action.

So you're saying Wikia staff will get involved if enough users complain? Because they told me the opposite. They told me if a badmin is causing problems then "that wiki probably won't do too well, and the users will vote with their feet". So basically, it's on the users to leave.

Fobarimperius wrote: On top of that, if a user is going to come on here and make crass statements like the staff sides with 'fascists', staff will be polite about it, but they're still people and probably don't appreciate that, and are much less likely to follow a request when being insulted.

That wasn't my lead in, believe me. This all began with overly polite requests for the staff to look into certain matters, and documented proof was provided each time. Only after being told each time that they won't do anything about it did it come to this thread.