Hello, Ender. I've taken a look at your block log and it looks like you've never been blocked before on that wiki. A one year block with that description gives you plenty of options. The safest one is to contact staff using this form and explaining the situation to them. You should get a response within the next 72 hours. I doubt they'll demote him, but they should at least remove your block and warn him that his conduct breaches ToU.
Abuse, harass, threaten or intimidate other Fandom users;
Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct;"
Due to "retard" being an ableist slur, I would say this counts as "abuse" and "offensive" content, and could at least warrant in the admin receiving a warning (albeit - for a potential first offence - it's possible Fandom might not ban the user). I'd agree with VanityFiend that it's worth sending in a a report, as it's unacceptable language and should be looked at by staff.
That's what the ToU states, but it's incredibly vague. We users can say something might be a violation of the ToU, but that decision lies with staff. And in terms of language, they've been lax in the past.
It's always worth sending in a report, but don't expect anything major.
As Tupka points out, Staff rarely gets involved in local wiki matters, but you can still send in a Support Ticket.
The key here is the phrasing. The reason states that it is the pages which are "dumb retarted[sic]". Had it said that of YOU, the user, it could be considered a ToU violation.
"Rude" it may be, and that *might* earn User:Manny204553 a mild warning from staff to be careful of their language, but what all you ask…? Probably not. As stated above, that is for Staff to determine if it crosses any lines.
Lo, this reminds me of a court, where even the littlest things, like "The key here is the phrasing. The reason states that it is the pages which are "dumb retarted[sic]". Had it said that of YOU, the user, it could be considered a ToU violation.". Lol.
RealKnockout, there are rules that need to be followed.
If the admins are phrasing things in that precise manner, it's because they have to be clear as possible towards users and not give any false hope on an outcome (or mislead to a potential outcome). It's as stated, that the ToU are vague in this matter, and only staff can say whether this specific case is worth a warning or whether it has not broken any rules.
Do you have anything else to add or ask except for sarcasm?
RealKnockout wrote: Lo, this reminds me of a court, where even the littlest things, like "The key here is the phrasing. The reason states that it is the pages which are "dumb retarted[sic]". Had it said that of YOU, the user, it could be considered a ToU violation.". Lol.
Well obviously an admin will stand up for the abusive behavior of another admin. Did you really expect anything different? It's basically the "elite" (and I use this term very loosely) trying to downplay, normalize or conceal their own corrupt behavior, using every little trick in the book to avoid liability while still getting their way. It's actually eerily similar to real life, in the way that justice is often not served to those with power. Not that wikia admins actually have any power outside their meagre wikis, but you get the point. Your analogy is not completely off base, therefore.