FANDOM


  • Is blocking a user for no reason a violation of terms of use?

      Loading editor
    • While it could be true, it isn’t officially true that blocking for no reason is a violation of Fandom's TOU, since it mostly depends on how each community handles its blocking policy.

        Loading editor
    • "No reason" isn't the same as "a reason you do not understand or agree with". Because we get "I've been blocked for no reason" so often here, and there's always a reason.

        Loading editor
    • Would a user being a jerk quailfy as a good reason?

        Loading editor
    • Blocking you for being a jerk by not liking you is not a violation of terms of use, blocking you for being a jerk by not letting anyone else edit the wiki is a violation of the terms of use.

        Loading editor
    • If you have to ask, "is it a ToU violation", it's probably not a ToU violation.

      Being a jerk is a good reason to block someone. If they negatively impact the atmosphere of a wiki and make others feel unwelcome and unwanted, a ban is normal.

        Loading editor
    • The blocked user though is a admin on a fandom where the other user is blocked.

        Loading editor
    • I believe what Iron Claw is asking, is if it's against TOU to revenge-block a user.

      USER1 is an admin on xx wiki. USER2 edits xx wiki, but ends up being blocked by USER1. USER2 decides to create the xxx wiki, solely for the purpose of blocking USER1.

      The wiki has been closed - in case you didn't notice.

        Loading editor
    • Exactly.

        Loading editor
    • Well i did spoke to the other user about it and he was pretty upset with the admin blocking him on the muppet wiki. So, he did made a wiki and block the admin there just to get him back.

        Loading editor
    • Here is the reason why he was blocked that i screenshot at. 
      Superfgf

      Here's why.

        Loading editor
    • In short, the only restriction on blocking is that it cannot violate the ToU. As long as the admin isn't violating the ToU, they are free to block for whatever reason; including no reason at all. That said, the context of the block can be taken into consideration when determining if the block violates ToU. For instance, lets say there is a new wiki with the founder and 100 other editors. If the founder blocks 1 of the editors for no reason, staff aren't likely to get involved. If, on the other hand, the founder blocks all 100 editors, then staff may interpret that as an attempt to have a private wiki which is a violation of ToU. In that case, the founder would be penalized and most (if not all) of the blocks revoked by staff. In the case of block warring, it depends on the details of the situation. In a case where user2 blocks user1 to retaliate for a justified block (or even for just a disagreement) and user1 has not contributed to the wiki, staff may choose to revoke the block.

        Loading editor
    • Disco the Hedgefox wrote: Well i did spoke to the other user about it and he was pretty upset with the admin blocking him on the muppet wiki. So, he did made a wiki and block the admin there just to get him back.

      That'll show them.

      Being upset at a block is irrelevant to the block. Seriously.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:

      Disco the Hedgefox wrote: Well i did spoke to the other user about it and he was pretty upset with the admin blocking him on the muppet wiki. So, he did made a wiki and block the admin there just to get him back.

      That'll show them.

      Being upset at a block is irrelevant to the block. Seriously.

      Yeah i agree. He really can't handle the block and won't learn how to deal with it. He just message a admin on here a while ago from another wiki just to get his attention. This proves that he is not mature enough to handle the block.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:
      In short, the only restriction on blocking is that it cannot violate the ToU. As long as the admin isn't violating the ToU, they are free to block for whatever reason; including no reason at all. That said, the context of the block can be taken into consideration when determining if the block violates ToU. For instance, lets say there is a new wiki with the founder and 100 other editors. If the founder blocks 1 of the editors for no reason, staff aren't likely to get involved. If, on the other hand, the founder blocks all 100 editors, then staff may interpret that as an attempt to have a private wiki which is a violation of ToU. In that case, the founder would be penalized and most (if not all) of the blocks revoked by staff. In the case of block warring, it depends on the details of the situation. In a case where user2 blocks user1 to retaliate for a justified block (or even for just a disagreement) and user1 has not contributed to the wiki, staff may choose to revoke the block.

      Yeah, Maybe so, maybe not. But other admins and bureaucrats on other wikis can make up there own rule anyway they like it to be and just to be fair for the case of the matter. However, I didn't know blocking users and people for no reason is not against the policy and rules on the fandom site.

        Loading editor
    • I rarely see someone not upset on a block. You burned your ass. Sit on the blisters.

        Loading editor
    • Wait what?

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:
      I rarely see someone not upset on a block. You burned your ass. Sit on the blisters.

      Disco the Hedgefox was not the user blocked.

        Loading editor
    • Danielroxheaps wrote:
      Tupka217 wrote:
      I rarely see someone not upset on a block. You burned your ass. Sit on the blisters.

      Disco the Hedgefox was not the user blocked.

      Maybe he thinks i'm the bad guy or something. But, i'm not.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:
      "No reason" isn't the same as "a reason you do not understand or agree with". Because we get "I've been blocked for no reason" so often here, and there's always a reason.

      a unfair reason

        Loading editor
    • Disco the Hedgefox wrote:

      Danielroxheaps wrote:
      Tupka217 wrote:
      I rarely see someone not upset on a block. You burned your ass. Sit on the blisters.

      Disco the Hedgefox was not the user blocked.

      Maybe he thinks i'm the bad guy or something. But, i'm not.

      It was a general, non-specific "you".

        Loading editor
    • Oh i see. My mistake.

        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.