FANDOM


  • Love Robin
    Love Robin closed this thread because:
    x
    19:09, October 10, 2019

    who could help me?

      Loading editor
    • It really depends on what you're reporting them for, if it's even worth wasting your time with.

        Loading editor
    • Annabeth and Percy wrote:
      It really depends on what you're reporting them for, if it's even worth wasting your time with.

      she i very rude for me

        Loading editor
    • Rude how?

        Loading editor
    • Annabeth and Percy wrote:
      Rude how?

      she deleted my series from Canon Characters because she don't like my series

        Loading editor
    • Then, yeah, you'll probably just be wasting your time reporting her.

        Loading editor
    • but she is rude to me and I would like to report her for it

        Loading editor
    • Being rude is not a Terms of Use violation. You can tell staff at Special:Contact, but there is no "report" protocol like social media have. There's no strike, no note on a record, nothing.

        Loading editor
    • It is almost impossible to report someone for being rude if they are the admin of that wiki. In fact, even if they are rude and not an admin but the admin of the wiki chooses not to discipline it is the same deal.

      Usually leaving the wiki is the best practice; if you can't work it out civilly. I have left one wiki due to a rude admin and once just cause I personality clashed with an admin (but we weren't rude/badly behaving) just wasn't worth the stress.

      Now if they followed you to other wikis or community central then it could be something the staff might intervene on.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I feel the community Central should have a "complaint thread" for users to make any complaint about anything. And atleast one staff dedicated to look after them. It would bring transparency in the wikis. Also, it's usually been said that noone owns a wiki but the irony is an admin/bureaucrat does in many ways owns a wiki that is they can block people for whatever reason please them, can be rude and disrespectful to users without anyone raising a single Question on their own behavior while they would continue to Question others behaviour and blocking them for the purpose. I have seen admins blocking people with more than 20,000 edits which is kind of sad as how their efforts didn't gain anything except for a block just for raising their opinion and trying to do something which they thought were good for the community. But I guess, the end decision always lies in the hands of an admin and thus the key and ownership of a wiki. They do anything they want because they know there is noone to question their behaviours and ofcourse, they always tend to build a fair relationship with other admins so that they would support them at every moment. In short, you cannot take any step against an abusing admin, mate. However rude they are it should be always you who need to apologise and move forward. Noone can do anything about it.

        Loading editor
    • Newt Strike wrote: Honestly, I feel the community Central should have a "complaint thread" for users to make any complaint about anything. And atleast one staff dedicated to look after them. It would bring transparency in the wikis. Also, it's usually been said that noone owns a wiki but the irony is an admin/bureaucrat does in many ways owns a wiki that is they can block people for whatever reason please them, can be rude and disrespectful to users without anyone raising a single Question on their own behavior while they would continue to Question others behaviour and blocking them for the purpose. I have seen admins blocking people with more than 20,000 edits which is kind of sad as how their efforts didn't gain anything except for a block just for raising their opinion and trying to do something which they thought were good for the community. But I guess, the end decision always lies in the hands of an admin and thus the key and ownership of a wiki. They do anything they want because they know there is noone to question their behaviours and ofcourse, they always tend to build a fair relationship with other admins so that they would support them at every moment. In short, you cannot take any step against an abusing admin, mate. However rude they are it should be always you who need to apologise and move forward. Noone can do anything about it.

      I think one reason staff/admins don't get involved is because in countless cases neither party is a peach or worse it is multiple petty indifference's that is more heated conflict and not rude/incivility. I, myself have had my share of clashes where I am not completely innocent and may even over reacted to what I considered rude but other's did not consider rude.

      I remember one wiki I helped I did major updating in navigation boxes, infobox migration and css design style vastly improving the wiki as a whole with over 3k edits in a month or two. However, with one admin it was like pulling teeth each improvement I tried to make or suggest (I had to go over their head to the bureaucrat almost every time to get results) and by the end I just left (with regular editors sad to see me leave). I never went back but I see them often complained about in community central (even years later) but technically they weren't horribly rude just- slightly rude.

      But this also makes me wonder if this is why wikis have low editor count- how many times do you think people just walked away from all wikis cause one bad admin ruined the wiki experience. But even when I tried to be 'fair' or follow 'consensus rule' I have had people hate me as an admin because they didn't get their way on something.

        Loading editor
    • I agree but all that I'm asking is staffs should hear both the parties and warn both the regular user and the admin about the ongoing issue. This would ensure the admins too learn to keep their toes in and think twice before blocking someone as they would know there is someone above them watching their activities. It would restrict their "free pass" of blocking anyone they please. I'm an admin too on wikis where people certainly are not happy with me either because they think I have taken something which they wanted. And I would be happy if anyone complaints about me as well, it would give me a good idea to respect my fellow users no matter I'm an admin or just a regular user.

        Loading editor
    • Newt Strike wrote: I agree but all that I'm asking is staffs should hear both the parties and warn both the regular user and the admin about the ongoing issue. This would ensure the admins too learn to keep their toes in and think twice before blocking someone as they would know there is someone above them watching their activities. It would restrict their "free pass" of blocking anyone they please. I'm an admin too on wikis where people certainly are not happy with me either because they think I have taken something which they wanted. And I would be happy if anyone complaints about me as well, it would give me a good idea to respect my fellow users no matter I'm an admin or just a regular user.

      Without risk of further derailing the original poster's original topic but it is indeed an interesting topic that can be taken further into detail- it might be an idea to post a thread on this subject and/or contact wiki staff proposing such a protocol.

        Loading editor
    • A "Complaint Line" does exist with Special:Contact.

      However, the sad fact is that long ago as the number of (just English-speaking!) wikis began to grow (now over 350K), Staff had to back off the concept of adjudicating inter-user and user-V-admin conflicts as just too many for the resources and number of available Staff to field them. If they were to still do that, we'd be talking about either nothing getting done behind the scenes (infrastructure) keeping FANDOM running or improvements, OR probably talking about wait times lagging into months, just like IRL (American) courts.

      The logistics are just against the idea. Instead, Staff has to hold the view of "Badly administrated wikis will drive off users, wither, and fail" while "Better administrated wikis will attract users, grow, and succeed".

      In other words, sink or swim. Survival of the fittest. Etc.

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote:

      The logistics are just against the idea. Instead, Staff has to hold the view of "Badly administrated wikis will drive off users, wither, and fail" while "Better administrated wikis will attract users, grow, and succeed".

      In other words, sink or swim. Survival of the fittest. Etc.

      I disagree with this, if the wiki subject is popular enough or already highly established with enough complicit editors and/or a revolving door of editors coming and going they won't ever die even if you have Hilter running it.

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote:

      Love Robin wrote:

      The logistics are just against the idea. Instead, Staff has to hold the view of "Badly administrated wikis will drive off users, wither, and fail" while "Better administrated wikis will attract users, grow, and succeed".

      In other words, sink or swim. Survival of the fittest. Etc.

      I disagree with this, if the wiki subject is popular enough or already highly established with enough complicit editors and/or a revolving door of editors coming and going they won't ever die even if you have Hilter running it.

      It's okay to disagree with it, but unless you come up with a practical, workable solution, nothing is going to change.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:

      Hollowness wrote:

      Love Robin wrote:

      The logistics are just against the idea. Instead, Staff has to hold the view of "Badly administrated wikis will drive off users, wither, and fail" while "Better administrated wikis will attract users, grow, and succeed".

      In other words, sink or swim. Survival of the fittest. Etc.

      I disagree with this, if the wiki subject is popular enough or already highly established with enough complicit editors and/or a revolving door of editors coming and going they won't ever die even if you have Hilter running it.

      It's okay to disagree with it, but unless you come up with a practical, workable solution, nothing is going to change.

      I disagree a wiki would fail if admins are bad- I don't disagree with how staff deals with it. I think the current structure is fine but if others want to suggest other things they are free to.

      edit: that is why I only clipped that one section of the post- I was only referring to that one mindset.

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote:

      Love Robin wrote:

      The logistics are just against the idea. Instead, Staff has to hold the view of "Badly administrated wikis will drive off users, wither, and fail" while "Better administrated wikis will attract users, grow, and succeed".

      In other words, sink or swim. Survival of the fittest. Etc.

      I disagree with this, if the wiki subject is popular enough or already highly established with enough complicit editors and/or a revolving door of editors coming and going they won't ever die even if you have Hilter running it.

      hitlerĀ ? what?

        Loading editor
    • It has since been revealed the "rudeness" is over a refusal to LINK OP's stories to certain pages/categories.

      I'm closing this.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.