Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-233706-20150624014033/@comment-452-20150627005545

Believe it! wrote: Allow? As if the community could stop such a badmin. They can't. That's the whole point of this article. They can, that's the whole point of my reply.

User Conduct clearly calls for no harassment.

Meanwhile, the friends of the badmins are allowed to post insults and threats to other users all the time, and they never receive so much as a warning. I 100% agree that Wikia Staff should do more about users using insults and threats. I was recently openly insulted myself, and Wikia Staff declared it was a "comment" or some such, rather than an "insult".

And even if the users set up their own rules and the badmins break those rules, what exactly are these powerless users supposed to do about it? Contact Wikia staff and you get the same old line about noninvolvement. Contacting Wikia Staff is not the first step, and shouldn't be. Part of setting up guidelines for admins to follow is specifying exactly what should happen when the rules are broken. (Most wikis don't even have guidelines specifying exactly what should happen when a normal user breaks the rules!) At the very least, after rules are enacted, if an admin breaks the rules, there should be a discussion about the fact that the admin broke the rules, as well as discussion about whether the admin should be removed.

And what good will any of that do if RIGHT NOW the Wikia staff are outright stating that they do not get involved in wiki affairs? I'm unsure what part of "Admins are not allowed to remove votes about them - if this has happened, report it to Wikia Staff." was unclear.

RIGHT NOW if an admin has deleted a discussion regarding their conduct or proposing their removal, link Wikia Staff to the deleted content RIGHT NOW.

You wrote it yourself that admins are given managerial autonomy. Managerial means to manage a wiki, which is exactly what I posted before; fixing errors, preventing vandalism, and keeping things civil (i.e. Applying the User Conduct rules). Thanks for the needless explanation of Managerial, but the important word is "autonomy", which basically means "independence" in this context.


 *  edit : When I first wrote this, I overlooked a major misquote:

452 wrote:

Wikia grant communities managerial autonomy.

Believe it! wrote:

You wrote it yourself that admins are given managerial autonomy. Please do not misquote me again.

The next section has been edited accordingly. (Additions are underlined)

"Managerial autonomy" means they communities are free to manage their communities how they like. As in there are no "supposed to"s. There is nowhere which says what admins are "supposed to" do. There are pages which explain what admins can do - like how to block - but there is no clear list of "This is what an admin is, and this is what they are expected to do".

The fact that they communities are "free to manage their communities how they like" says nothing about they admins being required to "Fix errors, prevent vandalism, and keep things civil".

You can't simply expect an admin to do those things if doing those things is not written down anywhere.

Furthermore, "fixing errors" is most certainly not an admin responsibility. It is the responsibility of all users to fix any error they see.

As I said, if you've found somewhere that says the things you're claiming, please link me to it, because I would love to read it.