[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Parker Peters]

On 2/21/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not the obvious vandalism that's a problem, it's the number of
> people,
> > growing every day, who see an article, try to fix it, and get whacked by
> an
> > over-eager, over-egoed, over-caffeine-dosed admin who's lost the ability
> to
> > distinguish from a real vandal and someone trying to [[Be Bold]] and fix
> a
> > problem.
>
> I can see two possible patterns a newbie editor can get into when
> trying to "fix" a "defended" article.
>
> 1. bold/revert/talk/shrug/go play elsewhere
>
> 2. bold/revert/bold/revert/bold/revert/go WTF on talk
> page/bold/revert/bold/revert/
> bold/revert/more dickery on talk
> page/block/sockpuppets/block/lather/rinse/repeat
>
> As far as you know, have any of these innocent newbie editors drew the
> wrath of a "rogue admin" following pattern 1?


You're drawing a false route There are more possibilities than that:

0. Obvious vandalism from the start: no question on blocking, and I really
have no problem with blocking.

1. bold/revert/talk/shrug/leave

2. bold/revert/argue/blocked/leave - This one's been made into an enemy of
wikipedia

3. bold/revert/get abused by POV clique - Another enemy of wikipedia now

4. bold/revert/bold/revert/bold/etc (Your #2) - congratulations, you've made
an enemy again.

5. bold/revert/bold/talk/reverted by others/accused of being a sockpuppet of
someone previous/angry at false accusation... and again, wikipedia's made an
enemy.

Parker

-- 
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com