Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-3184244-20200117005313/@comment-168424-20200123054449

Tycio wrote:

Ah but... if only the bad admins cause people to speak about them on CC, doesn't that support my point about them making a larger impression? At least in that respect.

There are definitely people who protest deserved bans, although there is also some middle ground like maybe a ban was deserved, but that the length was way too long in respect to the sum consideration of severity and recurrence. IE the huge amount of forever-bans that seem to happen over well-intentions builders who butt heads with authority over what they think is worth including.

The inability to present evidence is also a big factor... in many cases that's due to none being there to present, but in other cases it's just neglect in doing so (perhaps they can't remember or re-locate details to link to?) or an inability (ie can't link to an edit diff on the history of a deleted page, only admins can see diffs of history, so a user can't regain particular links to prep for staff)

Those are all fine possible examples, but history doesn't support them as being commonplace. Most complainers may be well-intentioned, but they are rarely builders in that they have a history of constructive edits. Like I've said in other threads, a vast majority of the cases where we investigate the reasons for a block we find that the block is valid and the user was never very productive and deserving of better consideration.

While it is true that blocks are often overly long, they rarely seem to happen on users who are of great help to a wiki. Also, it's not like FANDOM makes admins go through some kind of training before they can become admins... FANDOM doesn't really care that much if most admins are good or not. What they care about is traffic and a crazy admin who blocks user for no good reason for too long on a wiki that generates good traffic or doesn't generate too many support tickets is a good admin to them.