[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Ray Saintonge]

Mark Ryan wrote:

>On 20/02/07, MacGyverMagic wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm with Oskar. If they call various administrators abusive they should be
>>able to back that up.
>>Of course, the smarter response is to talk it out with the admin in question
>>so it doesn't come to such accusations.
>>
>>Mgm
>>    
>>
>Ah, but the emails in question contained diffs which they claimed
>shewed that the administrators in question were "abusive". Should
>those have been let through?
>
For me it's clearly yes.  The diffs are a key positive factor. 

Simply calling an admin abusive should not be a serious factor, nor 
should failing to discern the subtlety between an abusive admin and an 
abusive action.  I think that very few people would make that 
distinction.  Relevance is more important.  A claim of admin abuse is 
specifically about what the admin does in Wikipedia, and is thus 
relevant.  If the claimant enters into all manner of claims about the 
admin's personal morals, paternity or sexual preferences that would 
clearly be beyond our control, and would fail the relevance test.

Ec