Animal Crossing Wiki
All Contributors
Furentes
Dragonfree97
天体ダチョウ
Emilysara
Fang³
ShadeTempest
+1
• 8/11/2015

Cleaning up.

I've been putting this off for a while, partially because my living arrangement isn't the most comfortable at the moment and so I haven't set aside much time for the wiki, and partially because I'm honestly worried of being 'shut down' due to bringing this up. But if we're at the point where I have to worry about dissent for addressing issues with the wiki, it's a sure sign that some kind of discussion needs to occur.

Ok, so first up, being an admin (sysop), bureaucrat, chat moderator or rollback does not put you on a hierarchy. An admin's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's, the validity of an argument or statement should be based off its content and not the person saying it.

What does this mean?
This means that when it comes to community decisions, the decision should rest on the community, not a few users in a position of power. Any significant changes to the wiki or its functionality should be voted on by users of the wiki, in an open forum.

It also means that people with user rights are not in 'charge'. What they say is not gospel, and what they decide is not always the proper protocol for dealing with certain situations. As a contributor to this wiki, you are allowed to disagree with admins. Do not be afraid to speak up if you see power abuse or even if you think there was a better way of doing something, do not let them make you think they are above everyone else.


Ok, secondly, this wiki is a biased cesspool. It has a long history of double-standards when dealing with certain users and events. Depending on the users involved, the rules are either vigorously enforced or completely swept under the rug. This segment of this forum is mostly directed at the sysops and chat moderators of this wiki, in reference particularly with what happens in that chat room. Chat isn't "your chat", no-one here owns it, if your opinions conflict with another user's, too bad. Do not treat things with an agenda in your mind.

There's a lot of pack play here. People with similar opinions essentially ganging up on the users who they disagree with or dislike. Said users are demoted, blocked or just leave. I've seen it a lot and people have spoken out to me about it on numerous occasions, even the people who previously would have felt part of these little groups.

A lot of people assume that because I am on friendly terms with them I won't cut through them to make sure things are fair. In the past a few things were holding me back, but from now onwards if I see something I will address it. I'm sounding really aggressive because I'm not tolerating this crap anymore, but the reality is there is actually very little I can do. I hope then, that whatever happens this forum should serve as a reminder to the members of this community.

Post your thoughts below. Fang³ 10:16, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

6 21
  • Upvote
  • Reply
Furentes
Dragonfree97
天体ダチョウ
Emilysara
Fang³
ShadeTempest
+1
0
• 8/11/2015

Thanks for bringing this up Fang, there are definitely double standards regarding the banning of users. Users that are on friendly terms with the admins but break rules such as being under 13, are less likely to be banned or kicked, than those that break the same rules but are disliked by admins. Additionally, I've seen that users that perform personal attacks on other users are less likely to be banned than those that perform personal attacks on someone with the ability to ban or kick.

As Emilysara mentions below, sometimes chat moderators use their kicking as toys. An example would be one time when an admin would "ban pronouns" and kick any users that used the pronoun. While I'm all for games, I think only those that give consent to play along should be affected by kicks such as these.

Many times, chat moderators or admins ban people with insufficient evidence of their guilt, often trying to procure the evidence against someone they don't like.

I think one of the reasons people consider an admin a person in power is because of the fact that it's called "admin" in the first place, a title usually associated with power.

Wikipedia policy brings up an interesting point: in Wikipedia, blocks and bans are for preventative reasons, not to punish a user for breaking a rule.

1
• 8/11/2015

From my time being in chat I have noticed people grouping up on one person. In some cases pushes the person to the limit of a full on argument. Which then leads to breaking a rule that then leads to a ban and then leads to a "Why was I banned" message on a mods wall. Some cases the group of people might be trolling the other person or just pushing them around (toying with them). Some of those people do not have high tolerating standards so they get all angry maybe spam to put out a point to emphasize their feelings and then a mod kicks them. Some people will get even angrier, feeling that a mod can't even help them in this situation. Losing all self-control and making even more drama then what has happened already.

Now how I see what kicking should be used for is that it is a way to enforce a rule before it get's out of hand. Banning is a way to keep that person from making anymore drama to "cool them down". Kicks should happen after a warning that the victim can see clearly. Bans should be used if they have clear impartial evidence of what the offense is. Some things do clearly need bans like spam the minute the person enters chat. Robyn might have pointed this out already but infinitely banning someone because of a small argument that just needed to be cleared up is a bit too harsh.

Arguments should be talked about in a civil manner after a day or two long ban. Spam should also be talked about if it was started by a argument. Bans that were about offensive things clearly need to be talked about why they are offensive (even if it clearly shows how offensive it is).

A mod is a person to keep chat safe, fun, and a place for people to make friends. They are not kings or queens they are on the same level as every person in chat. They can be banned if they break the of rules the same way a regular person in chat can get banned for breaking the rules.

On the subject of mods, a person should not be repeatedly banned and then immediately unbanned the second that they are banned. I see that as a way of abusing the right of banning. Bans should be only used once in the period of time. Unbanning someone when they were banned means that you were wrong about the ban, that the mod made a mistake. Mistakes happen all the time but unbanning someone and then just banning them immediately, repeating the process over and over seems like the mod isn't a very good mod. Bans are not toys that a mod can just play around with they are a way of enforcing rules to keep chat safe, fun, and a place for people to make friends.

Mods must be impartial and know a sense of what is good and what is wrong.

~Emilysara (Questions?)

P.S. If I sounded like a hypocrite in any way, I am sorry for my offense this is just my opinion and no one has to go by it.

0
• 8/12/2015

Well said. Woudln't call someone who's being kicked a "victim", though. :P Doesn't sound hypocritical to me. I don't think bans always need evidence, sometimes an issue needs to be dealt with quickly and having a reviewed process in place just lets the problem create more damage. The ban can later be revoked if it wasn't right.

0
• 8/12/2015

Yeah, I don't think you need evidence of a rule violation occurring if you, as a moderator, are in chat when it occurs. As for events that occurred when you weren't around, obviously you do need some evidence that a problem has occurred, otherwise you can't really make a well-informed decision as to what to do, and it turns into a massive game of he-said she-said, which of course isn't ideal for making good moderation decisions.

0
• 8/12/2015

I do agree Fang that some people do need to be banned quickly. Spamming for instance after warnings does deserve a ban at the spot. 

On the other hand I think that some argument related bans should have evidence (even if a mod was there) since the person who got banned could suspect a bias mod, and then as what Robyn said, "turns into a massive game of he-said she-said". Finding evidence after a ban could be necessary in the situation when the argument is out of control.

For me evidence is a way to back up an enforced rule. Stating that this person violated this rule, then just having a bubble of, "Did this person really violated this rule?" and having no clear proof of who did this and that.

Again as above, this is just my opinion and no one has to go by it.

(Btw idk why I used victim XD, bans just became crime cases XDD)

0
• 8/13/2015
Fang³ wrote:
Well said. Woudln't call someone who's being kicked a "victim", though. :P Doesn't sound hypocritical to me. I don't think bans always need evidence, sometimes an issue needs to be dealt with quickly and having a reviewed process in place just lets the problem create more damage. The ban can later be revoked if it wasn't right.


I love you. Stay strong.

0
• 8/14/2015
Fang³ wrote:
Well said. Woudln't call someone who's being kicked a "victim", though. :P Doesn't sound hypocritical to me. I don't think bans always need evidence, sometimes an issue needs to be dealt with quickly and having a reviewed process in place just lets the problem create more damage. The ban can later be revoked if it wasn't right.

Yeah but the problem is that they might just start more stupid ish when they get unbanned if it was wrong. 

0
• 8/14/2015

Furentes wrote:

Fang³ wrote:
Well said. Woudln't call someone who's being kicked a "victim", though. :P Doesn't sound hypocritical to me. I don't think bans always need evidence, sometimes an issue needs to be dealt with quickly and having a reviewed process in place just lets the problem create more damage. The ban can later be revoked if it wasn't right.

Yeah but the problem is that they might just start more stupid ish when they get unbanned if it was wrong. 

It takes about three clicks to ban them again c;

0
• 8/15/2015

Dragonfree97 wrote:

Furentes wrote:

Fang³ wrote:
Well said. Woudln't call someone who's being kicked a "victim", though. :P Doesn't sound hypocritical to me. I don't think bans always need evidence, sometimes an issue needs to be dealt with quickly and having a reviewed process in place just lets the problem create more damage. The ban can later be revoked if it wasn't right.

Yeah but the problem is that they might just start more stupid ish when they get unbanned if it was wrong. 

It takes about three clicks to ban them again c;

True

0
• 8/15/2015
Umm.... so what does this mean buddy?
Write a reply...