[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Ray Saintonge]

Rob wrote:

>On 2/21/07, Parker Peters wrote:
>  
>
>>Ideally? I'd like for administrators not to do the things that cause
>>problems. But that's not likely.
>>    
>>
>Ideally, you would stop viewing every administrative action as
>resulting from a malicious abuse of power.  But that's not likely.
>
Parker did not speak of  "every" administrative action.  Reading that 
into what he says is dishonest.

>>If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big
>>deal. However, the bar for losing adminship is nearly impossibly high.
>>If Adminship were not a big deal, the ever-growing requirements for it would
>>not be ever-growing. But they are.
>>    
>>
>I agree that we should probably treat adminship as a more of a big
>deal.  But I don't worry about "abusive" admins, not to protect my own
>"power" ("you'll have to pry my mop from my cold dead fingers!") but
>because we already have ArbCom to deal with the worst offenders.
>Given that I don't see nearly every admin as malicious and abusive, I
>think that this is a sufficent remedy. No malicious admin can prevent
>an abused user from bringing a matter before them.
>
Again no-one else is trying to distort the argument into being one about 
"every admin"   How much ArbCom can realistically consider is limited by 
the time that its members have available.  If you see ArbCom as dealing 
with the "worst offenders" this is a serious drift from the original 
intention of ArbCom.  May I remind you that it was originally 
established to diminish the need for those being disciplined to appeal 
directly to Jimbo; it was an appelate function; its duties did not 
include a first instance determination of responsibility.

In theory, yes, anyone can bring a matter before ArbCom.  In reality 
very few people in real life have the skills or understanding needed to 
bring a case before an appelate court.  Your assertion assumes that 
everyone has the skills, and that new immigrants and babies have innate 
abilities to immediately grasp all the steps that must be followed to 
pursue a case.  Your presumption that everyone approaches ArbCom as an 
equal fails on that basis.

>>(A) "Scarlet Letter" abuse. Users clearing/archiving warnings that they've
>>already seen, or clearing off bad-faith tagging such as "suspected
>>sockpuppet" tags or "warning" templates placed by abusive users trying to
>>harass another user (usually claiming that a difference of opinion on a
>>content matter is "vandalism), are routinely targeted by administrators. The
>>goal of both abusive users and administrators is to rile the editor up. This
>>is deliberate provocation, completely incivil, and all too common - yet it
>>is regularly given a free pass by the administrator community.
>>    
>>
>If I put a warning tag on a user talk page, it's because that user has
>done something meriting a warning, not to "rile the editor up".  They
>should not be removed because they serve as a notice to other
>administrators that this user has a history of negative behavior.
>
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person removing such a notice 
from his own talk page.  If he removes it himself that is proof that he 
has seen it.  The primary purpose of user talk pages is to communicate 
to that user; anything removed from the current page remains in the 
history of the page.  There are plenty of other means for administrators 
to communicate with each other.  Blocking someone because he has removed 
a warning tag from the current version of his own talk page is 
unequivocally abusive.

>>Administrators need to understand: BLOCKING SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET THEM
>>MAD. It is an action that is agressive and adversarial. No matter what the
>>temperament of the user, they will feel angry over this. They are likely to
>>leave a message that lashes out in anger at whoever did it, PARTICULARLY if
>>it is not justified within the rules or they already feel picked-upon by the
>>admin or his/her cronies.
>>    
>>
>The fact that a block gets someone MAD does not justify further abuse,
>and the talk page should not be used to give a troll a soapbox to
>attack people.
>
In an ideal world the wronged person should maintain the tranquility of 
a saint.  Admins should learn to recognize when their own actions have 
angered a user and should restrain from further abuse that would have 
the effect of sending the user over the top.  I expect admins to know 
better than to keep trolling those persons that they have already angered.

Ec