[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[David Gerard]

On 22/02/07, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at 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.