On 22/02/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/07, Parker Peters
<parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (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.
Tags placed in bad faith can be dealt with like any other abuse.
This issue has come up before. Admins should be smart enough to check
the talk page history.
> 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, it would be better to calm things down before a
block if possible.
That said, if someone is clearly being a dick, that's of course a
different matter.
- d.