User talk:Moth

Welcome to Lesbian Island!

Population

Me

Description

Absolute Scoundrel

Crimes

Unforgiving lesbianism, Unbridled goblin

Vandalism

For your edit [1] to the Half-Minotaur (5e Race) page, you are receiving a warning as per the Help:Warning Policy. Any continued offenses beyond this one will lead to a ban. —ConcealedLight (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2018 (MDT)

Profanity

For this edit [2] you are receiving a warning for your use of profane language. Using profane language is not permitted under our policies. Based on your warning above, you will be blocked for one week. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

I'm not entirely sure this warning is valid. The edit you linked was made almost two months before the edit on the half minotaur, and Moth has had a chance to correct her behavior since then. From looking through her contribution history, she hasn't committed any warnable offenses since the previous one. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:36, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

Agreed. That edit was made before her previous Vandalism warning, too. (As an aside, I don't like the profanity policy... Non-slur profanity just does not carry any weight anymore, except to like, old conservative folks. Slurs are the only words that carry actual weight) Varkarrus (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

The ban length starts with one week at three warnings. Under current policy (which you referenced in your block summary), and considering the points made by Geodude and Vark, I agree that Moth should not have been blocked unless you can explain how it was extenuating circumstances. Was that edit inappropriate? Yes. But anything that deserves a warning is inappropriate, so I fail to see why Moth was blocked prematurely. I'm not going to wheel-war with you, of course, but I think that you should either a) justify breaking policy, b) unblock Moth, or c) revise warning policy to align with your actions. I do not mean to come off as demanding; I just think that one of those actions would assuage the issues others have with this block :)

On a related note, I recently brought up my issues with the profanity policy, if anyone is interested in discussing it?--GamerAim (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

I mostly agree with the comments above. I can understand at least one warning under current policy, but with what evidence is present this ban seems unjustified. It's rather reasonable in 2018 to not think non-attacking profanity doesn't break rules, and as far as I can tell Moth hasn't used any profane language since the first warning. If we could not invoke double jeopardy, I would personally appreciate that. - Guy 15:21, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

That seems like consensus to me. I'll unblock Moth and remove her warning. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:36, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

The warning should not be removed, but we can discuss the block. I blocked Moth since CL explicitly stated above that any additional inappropriate actions would result in a ban. I did not want to undermine CL, and thought it is best to work together as admins. Since other users now disagree, and I did not look into detail into the severity of what Moth has done but rather I used my best judgment, the unblock is warranted. I would propose that alone the top of this user talk page warrants a warning (belittling), right? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2018 (MDT)

Yes, "additional," as in, after the offense she was first warned for. I agree that admins should not undermine each other, but it's important for us to speak up and discuss things when other admins perform actions we disagree with, as I did above, because it helps establish admins' viewpoints on each other's actions, helps avoid wheel warring, and shows the community that admins don't just automatically agree with each other because they're admins, as has seemed to be the case with moderation in other communities I've been part of, and is a sentiment that I've seen users here express on occasion.

I removed the warning because because Moth performed that action before she was warned the first time, she didn't get a chance to correct her behavior and avoid being warned again. We should not be giving out second, third, etc. warnings for things that a user did before they were warned the last time, because it doesn't give them a chance to correct their behavior to avoid being warned again. There are surely edge cases where this could be the correct action to take, but in the vast majority of cases, I think that that course of action is not appropriate.

I don't really see why the message at the top of this page is belittling in any way. I could see maybe a behavioral policy violation depending on your point of view because she lists her "lesbianism" as a "crime," but to me it seems mostly in jest and not in any way malicious. Even if that were the case (or if the other admins agree that that shouldn't be there), I still think she shouldn't be warned for it based on my comments above.

Finally, I think this discussion has evolved beyond the point where it should be taking place on a user's talk page. I recommend we move this discussion to Help talk:Warning Policy. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:58, 18 September 2018 (MDT)