FANDOM


  • Sometimes the admins can be a bit cruel. I have been wandering around certain wikis' special pages, like the block log, and I have noticed some people in the block log did only a few things wrong and got a block of 1 year+cannot edit talk page or 1 year. Some of them didn't even do that many things wrong, and the things that they did do weren't THAT bad. They deserved a block, sure, but not for a whole year. Don't you think that that's a bit cruel? I think we should decrease the standards for users a little bit (the standards for edits and stuff stay the same), so that we won't block these guys for a whole year. Instead, they would get a weeklong ban. However, if they were, like, pure vandals or something (not just adding incorrect facts or changing the pages stuff, I mean if part of a page said "is known to be hard", and then the vandal edited it to make that say "is known to be yo mama, but really, why touch bears' sandwiches when you could could could could could could could"), they would still get a yearlong ban… if they did it twice, but if it was even worse than that, like adding the N-word to pages, they would get an instant yearlong ban. I also think the "3 strikes and you're out" thing for the warnings is a bit cruel. We should make warnings come not for just doing a single slightly bad thing, but for doing it 3~4 times, or for doing a moderately bad thing once. Also, 3 seems like not enough. We should increase the amount needed to get a ban to at least 5. Admins would also be able to give multi-warnings for more severe things, though. Admins who disobay any of this a high amount (5-7 or something, it's your choice, but still pretty high) of times will get demoted to just moderators. Both types of moderators, but not admin. If you do what I say for all of this and it doesn't work and it just causes FANDOM to get messed up and become chaotic, it should be put back to normal. Also, don't ban all accounts of the same person if they are abusing multiple accounts, just ban most of them; ban all except for their main account. Also, don't ban for things like multi-account abuse, underage, ect. unless you have proof. This would help.

      Loading editor
    • I might understand, I am a admin at Reefholepedia.

      Admins can be removed by community vote.

        Loading editor
    • …yes, but how does removing admins by community vote help as much as doing these stuff? Did you not read the entire thing and just the title? This isn't about removing admins, as most people who don't explore special pages and stuff wouldn't know that they were blocking people cruelly. Also, um, how does this help with the warnings?

        Loading editor
    • For the record, there is no standard of both blocking and warning users across all wikis, so saying "the three-strikes rule is stupid" could be very much referring to a single wiki where this is policy (or something you assumed). Still, admins are allowed to block for anything, and it is their own interpretation of good faith to decide how long the block is going to be. Some individual wikis do have a guideline for block lengths, as a means of consistent blocking by all admins, but this is definitely not the case for most wikis. A lot is also depending on the first impression, if the first edits of someone are even slightly vandalism, a usual case is that they get a longer block, or most edits after that will be seen as non-constructive. A lot of veteran admins also try to determine a block length based on the willingness to chance: if the blocked user is not able to change his intentions within a few days, the block will be longer.

        Loading editor
    • Any wikis have policies of their own.

        Loading editor
    • Oh ok

        Loading editor
    • In my opinion, if you don't stop after a first warning and keep violating it, then it's right to ban the user after the second time without a warning, it's really not that cruel. And since the wikis have policies of their own... if you come to a person's house and violate the rules they set, they don't have to give you a warning, much less a second or third chance, before kicking you out of the house. 

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, but I think at least 5 warnings would be fair. This is FANDOM, not your house.

        Loading editor
    • An admin giving five warnings for the same thing isn't fair, they're naive.

      If someone continues after one warning, any action is fair game.

        Loading editor
    • You left 100 warnings on my wall? I didn't know. I am new and just created my account. I had no idea that is what the icon in the corner was for. Please give me another chance.

        Loading editor
    • Five warnings for what? For clicking the Reply button so fast that you couldn't rewrite your rude message that you wrote out of tantrum?

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    •  Yeah, but I think at least 5 warnings would be fair. This is FANDOM, not your house.

      But...it's their own wiki. As long as they don't violate COPPA law, post racist comments or things like it and violate other rules I forgot about, they can set their wiki's rules as they like. Quoting Mendes2's comment: It's a very bad practice to assume that warnings are always necessary, otherwise you could almost get away with murder twice. 

        Loading editor
    • Isn't it a moot discussion at the moment?

      Fandom will be changing the rules soon about how and when administrators can block, and that's not something we regular users can know how will change . . . we all know things can be very unfair at the moment, but - short of an admin breaking ToU - there's nothing that can be done. 

      I mean, OP can always leave feedback on admins' blocking abilities at contact Fandom Staff, but it feels strange discussing something that will change soon, and remains a total unknown. 

        Loading editor
    • But it this is not the future, so eh...better discuss about now.

        Loading editor
    • Ok I understand

        Loading editor
    • I’m not sure what you mean but you can come to one of my wikis if you want

        Loading editor
    • This I relate to.  I have ran into some good admins, but there too many admins who not only abuse their power but don't listen to reason.  And its usually people from bigger wikis that seem so arrogant.  They only want to put information they like even if its not accurate.  

      Just recently I got banned Infinitely for making a minor edit and got accused of sock puppeting which I never did. Infinite bans shouldn't even be allowed, especially without warning.  Admins who do this are cruel and honestly stupid.  Because if you ban someone that happens to get some good information later down the line, you will regret. 

        Loading editor
    • Yes no imitate bans

        Loading editor
    • Orythius wrote:
       Yeah, but I think at least 5 warnings would be fair. This is FANDOM, not your house.
      But...it's their own wiki. As long as they don't violate COPPA law, post racist comments or things like it and violate other rules I forgot about, they can set their wiki's rules as they like. Quoting Mendes2's comment: It's a very bad practice to assume that warnings are always necessary, otherwise you could almost get away with murder twice. 

      Some of these admins are not the original creators of the wikis, so I disagree that it's their own wiki. Some of them were appointed admin and began abusing their power and setting unfair rules.  Just because they can doesn't mean they SHOULD and that is what we are discussing. 

      And I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak. Making a minor edit does not merit being banned for life.  But you have admins who are abusive and arrogant in their positions, especially if their wikis are one of the biggest sources of information. 

        Loading editor
    • Orythius wrote:
      In my opinion, if you don't stop after a first warning and keep violating it, then it's right to ban the user after the second time without a warning, it's really not that cruel. And since the wikis have policies of their own... if you come to a person's house and violate the rules they set, they don't have to give you a warning, much less a second or third chance, before kicking you out of the house. 

      Many of these admins forget the wikis are meant to be fun for fans.  That is why this is called "fandom".  Unfortunately, these wiki admins make it hard to be a fan and they treat it too seriously.  I do believe that we as the community should be allowed to question admin decisions and there should be guidelines set against admins who abuse their authority across the board.  They are given too much autonomy and many times they can put inappropriate things if they want (but other people can't) hypocritically so.  That's not a fair system.  If Fandom does make updates, we should be able to file complaints or report admins who do not abide by their own rules and who abuse the system making it impossible to be apart of the fandom.  Especially if they are one of those admins that were appointed and did not actually create the wiki in the first place.  Those type of admins should not be given so much power. 

        Loading editor
    • Fandom is just a rebrand/rename, it isn't by default a right/mandate for fans. Fandom is/are Wikis, not a fans' rights site to do what they want and get ### warnings before action can happen- because one feel fans should be untouchable. The number of warnings doesn't matter, you just hope it's at least one.

      Unhelpful edits hurt Wikis and is not meant to hurt fans when action is taken, it's a form of protection. Appeasing everyone who is being counterproductive and giving them infinite chances can hurt a wiki community. This doesn't mean people don't or won't take advantage of power but truly abusive admins can be voted out or reported to staff (and as mentioned staff are going to be reevaluating that process). But chances are if you ticket staff and it is not in their opinion abuse- it's really about you, your feelings or pride and not just the admins.

      Some reasons admins might be strict or quick to block:

      • The Wiki has a history of bad or counterproductive editors disrupting their community.
      • You have a history of bad or counterproductive edits disrupting their community.
      • The Wiki is fairly large or small and minimal active admins who can help clean up bad edits or counterproductive edits.
      • Doing what is best for the Wiki, the Wiki's editors and the Wiki's fans/viewers can be 3 widely differently ways to run or balance a Wiki. That might mean making tough decisions that sometimes upset other admins, certain editors or some viewers.
      • Admins are done trying to talk to you or talking about the issue. You might not be done arguing but they are.
      • Block Spam first; assume good faith later. Sure we are suppose to assume good faith but almost anything that starts off as spam or spamming on a wall might be: block now; sort out later.
      • Raging, Ranting and Spazzing counteraction. An admin having to justify a long standing (or new) choice or decisions each time someone spazzes about it isn't how admin wants to spend their time- especially if they think the User isn't going to be receptive. They don't volunteer their time just to be insulted and abused either.

      Do you still think that isn't good admin'ing or reasons?

      Options when you conflict with a Wiki or it's admin(s):

      • Attempt to reconcile.
      • Leave (if you can't get along, just move on).
      • Contact staff with evidence of abuse.
      • Reach out to others in the wiki community for voting out a bad admin.
      • Wait, staff already said they are going to be taking a different stance on admin complaints after UCP is finished.

      I say this as someone who has both gotten along and not gotten along with strict to IMO abusive admins and as an admin praised as amazing to accused of being abusive when IMO they are just a begrudged user who was upset they couldn't get their way.

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote:
      Fandom is just a rebrand/rename, it isn't by default a right/mandate for fans. Fandom is/are Wikis, not a fans' rights site to do what they want and get ### warnings before action can happen- because one feel fans should be untouchable. The number of warnings doesn't matter, you just hope it's at least one.

      Unhelpful edits hurt Wikis and is not meant to hurt fans when action is taken, it's a form of protection. Appeasing everyone who is being counterproductive and giving them infinite chances can hurt a wiki community. This doesn't mean people don't or won't take advantage of power but truly abusive admins can be voted out or reported to staff (and as mentioned staff are going to be reevaluating that process). But chances are if you ticket staff and it is not in their opinion abuse- it's really about you, your feelings or pride and not just the admins.

      Some reasons admins might be strict or quick to block:

      • The Wiki has a history of bad or counterproductive editors disrupting their community.
      • You have a history of bad or counterproductive edits disrupting their community.
      • The Wiki is fairly large or small and minimal active admins who can help clean up bad edits or counterproductive edits.
      • Doing what is best for the Wiki, the Wiki's editors and the Wiki's fans/viewers can be 3 widely differently ways to run or balance a Wiki. That might mean making tough decisions that sometimes upset other admins, certain editors or some viewers.
      • Admins are done trying to talk to you or talking about the issue. You might not be done arguing but they are.
      • Block Spam first; assume good faith later. Sure we are suppose to assume good faith but almost anything that starts off as spam or spamming on a wall might be: block now; sort out later.
      • Raging, Ranting and Spazzing counteraction. An admin having to justify a long standing (or new) choice or decisions each time someone spazzes about it isn't how admin wants to spend their time- especially if they think the User isn't going to be receptive. They don't volunteer their time just to be insulted and abused either.

      Do you still think that isn't good admin'ing or reasons?

      Options when you conflict with a Wiki or it's admin(s):

      • Attempt to reconcile.
      • Leave (if you can't get along, just move on).
      • Contact staff with evidence of abuse.
      • Reach out to others in the wiki community for voting out a bad admin.
      • Wait, staff already said they are going to be taking a different stance on admin complaints after UCP is finished.

      I say this as someone who has both gotten along and not gotten along with strict to IMO abusive admins and as an admin praised as amazing to accused of being abusive when IMO they are just a begrudged user who was upset they couldn't get their way.

      I think its good that they will make those changes regarding admin complaints. I understand where you're coming from.  I supposed my issue is with how much power admins have.  For example, banning an IP address is too invasive in my opinion.  If you don't want someone invading the wiki, I do believe banning their username and associated email on file is a good way to go.  But being allowed to ban an IP?  I don't like that idea at all. Not to mention it punishes an entire housefold for the actions of one.  That's like making you go to jail after your sister or brother stole.  Its stupid.  

      And I'm sure people will say that people will just end up using someone else's account in the household. But people can do that anyway if they use a different IP at different places.  

      I do believe that if you take the time to create a wiki you should have the right to how it builds.  At the same time, I think its a trap to allow people to make edits and set vague rules, only to ban them for stupid things.  Things like this happen a lot.  You may as well block everyone from making edits on your wiki.  If a person is that concerned about the wiki being done a certain way, don't allow edits at all.  That makes more sense to me than banning over every little stupid thing.  Honestly that's a waste of time.  I think that there should be guidelines for admins as well for what they can and cannot do.  

      Even if we are to vote out a bad one.  If they replace them with another bad one then we end up with a cycle.  That's why I say there needs to be fandom guidelines set up with regulations for how admins should conduct themselves and limitations on what they can and cannot do.  Typically when it comes to the banning process. 

      I am the admin of two wikis myself.  I understand what it means to want your wiki a certain way and not want it tainted.  I just think methods of banning should be changed.

        Loading editor
    • IP banning is up to the provider/Fandom and I think it is because Fandom themselves use it as a tool (VSTF). It won't simply be removed cause it's not fair to a household, etc. Life isn't fair, it's online and set rules to protect from spammers, abusers, etc. They always leave an appeal/ticket as an option.

      Things to consider:

      • No such thing as a perfect world or perfect wiki admin.
      • Wikia/Fandom already have stated private wikis (aka block everyone from editing) is not and will not be allowed- so don't even try that approach.
      • There are guidelines for admins but it is not enforced without that wiki's majority/consensus or proof of abuse.
      • Fandom cannot police to that extent nor would they want to, to allow the sort of free form editing and admin accountability you are expecting. If anything they may even require admins to look out for themselves more now with the staff cut backs.
      • Manual of style is bringing order to chaos for a Wiki. If admins couldn't enforce it it would severely hurt many wikis. And as an admin who tries to clearly explain manual of style and article conformity, why it is beneficial and that I would be open to amendments if there is a consensus- some people just don't want to follow anything ever.
      • If they weren't Admins would you just be having editing wars? That is also hindering to a Wiki. And no offense if they were there first and contributed greatly even if they are borderline an abusive admin their removal may still hurt a wiki. And I say this cause one Admin I think was and still is abusive with power and I see get complaints throughout the years on CC, at least has been loyal and active on the wiki (for years!) they are on and have the support of a non abusive admin. I still think they should be removed at least from that position but I can understand if never removed.

      Things to really consider:

      • What you are asking for when fandom is making layoffs and cut backs isn't going to happen anytime soon, unless already considered with the UCP change over. So you might not want to lean on Fandom to fix your inter-wiki problems with local admins in the form of revolutionary changes.
      • Opening a dialogue with the wikis in question that have you feeling passionate over these issues. Maybe this is displaced passion on the CC forums, you might be at odds with these admins atm and you might be more upset than you should let yourself be. Take a few days to really detail and reflect on these things (you already have quite a hefty start from what you have been saying so far). Then take away the emotion and taking it personal parts, and come forward to that wiki or those admins and suggest things you think that would be more beneficial and healthy for the wiki. If they or the wiki are not receptive at all or can't do what you are asking- maybe they can at least explain why they do what they do at this time. That can either give you closure or a reason to walk away or maybe they will be receptive and you guys can work together on the issues and make a happier wiki.
        Loading editor
    • Wow

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        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.