Problematic Moderation: Rico and Curtis LeMay

About This Message Board
1

I understand that Curtis LeMay’s posting privileges are under review because he asked whether anybody vandalizes Wikipedia.

This is not against the law. The rule cited was “[Vandalizing Wikipedia] is being a jerk. You’re being a jerk for even asking the question.” The thread was closed and moderator Rico asserted that posting privileges were under review.

It is hard to think of a more overbearing attitude. The idea that we now post questions about pretty innocuous activities at the peril of offending moderators’ private sensibilities is, well, not a frightening one—but one that certainly encourages members to think about what other boards they might post to on the big internet. This is not idle talk; posting stats are down for the SDMB.

Additionally, a great deal of mischief is invited when these extremely subjective calls—so ripe for discriminatory enforcement—are grounds for banning. Curtis LeMay’s inquired-about activity was no more objectionable than dozen of things that are asked about every day and that avoid Rico’s imperious umbrage.

Something should be under review, but not Curtis’s posting privileges. Maybe moderator term limits should be considered seriously. At any rate, Rico’s behavior in that thread needs to be renounced by the mods en banc.

2

This is not an isolated incident. Curtis Lemay has been accruing warnings and posting questionable OPs for as long as he’s been here. Starting his poll about doing legal (but jerkish) behavior is just the latest thing on the list.

And I would think, given what you do for a living, that you’d approve of having the staff discuss the issue (as we are currently doing) rather than having a single moderator make an off-the-cuff decision.

3

Curtis LeMay’s posting history aside, shutting down a thread because it discusses jerkish behaviour really does seem a little over the line. Talking about doing a jerkish thing is not the same as being a jerk, is it?

4

There would also be the problem of starting some type of board war with regular wikipedia editors should there be an overlap. Board and site wars being something that’s been a no-no since as far back as I’ve ever seen this place and I lurked since before this place went P2P and before they implemented ads.

5

It was a public poll. Curtis indicated by his vote that he vandalizes Wikipedia, which I think most people here would agree is being a jerk. He was also soliciting other posters to confess to similar jerkish behavior. (No one did before the thread was closed.)

As Wombat says, this is just the latest in a series of problematic posts by Curtis (including starting other public polls in which he has solicited other posters to confess whether they would violate board rules, or engage in other questionable activities). After his most recent warning (just a few days ago) I sent him a note telling him that further threads of this kind would result in review of his posting privileges, so he was already on notice to be careful about what he posted. He chose to ignore this.

6

It’s glorifying asshole behavior. It’s possible to have a conversation about vandalizing Wikipedia and offer up your own personal experiences without coming off as (too much of) a dick, but a thread that’s only about whether or not you’ve done it simply isn’t productive. It’s like asking if you troll message boards regularly.

Further, the poll was public. What was Curtis trying to do? Find others to justify his antisocial behavior? Out others in an attempt to make them lose credibility? At least lissener’s thread about cruelty you’re not ashamed of had a glimmering of good faith about it, but Curtis doesn’t even have that.

7

I’m not condoning what he did, but since there aren’t really any “regular” editors at wikipedia, nor is it a message board, there is little to no chance of a “board war” happening.

8

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:2, topic:523323”]

This is not an isolated incident. Curtis Lemay has been accruing warnings and posting questionable OPs for as long as he’s been here. Starting his poll about doing legal (but jerkish) behavior is just the latest thing on the list.
[/QUOTE]

I know that he has been admonished in the past. This instance differs though in that (1) the stakes are higher, and (2) the crime is much more benign. His earlier warnings never threatened banning. Moreover, those earlier OPs were for such questions posed as “If you were banned from a board, would you create a sockpuppet?”, a question that I will freely allow is more serious to this board than “Do you ever vandalize Wikipedia?”. So, If I didn’t object to those earlier warnings (despite thinking perhaps only a mere mod note, or even moderator pretermission, was in order), it was because the cost-benefit analysis (more serious misbehavior versus a lighter punishment) came out in favor of holding my peace.

But now we have the most grave sentence that can be handed down proposed for some not very worrisome conduct (indeed, it is against only that awful so-called rule “Don’t be a jerk”), so I feel it’s time to pipe up.

I’m certainly not advocating that any moderator be empowered to ban a member unilaterally and summarily. But I do think when moderators prefer charges and threaten bans, it will naturally have a chilling effect. I suppose what I am insisting that the convened moderators decide on is that they need to wield their indictments with much more caution.

I’m not sure I follow this completely. But I know there is some overlap in board members and wikipedia content-generators. And certainly, that is fine. However, moderators enforce this board’s rules, and vis-a-vis any other board, they let the chips fall where they may. We don’t allow posters here to form complots to raid other boards, but that isn’t what was taking place in Curtis LeMay’s thread.

Moderators who are also active on Wikipedia must be prepared to see some criticism and some contempt of that website on the SDMB, as such activities do not run afoul of our rules. If they find their loyalties cannot but be divided when it comes to moderating, they must step down.

9

This is pretty much what I expected was going on.

10

Straw, camel’s back.

And I am really beginning to hate the phrase “chilling effect.” It never amounts to anything more than fearmongering.

11

I suppose I could say something similar about people who think “I’m really beginning to hate X” is an argument against X. As to fearmongering, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that public punishment for behavior will deter other behavior, and if not done with discretion, will deter other, permissible behavior. So, I guess I don’t find your objection very compelling.

12

Posters who repeatedly post stuff that draws staff action are probably liable to refrain from posting more of the same sort of things–unless they are not interested in continuing to post.

The notion that any poster would be banned for a single instance of being told that they made a bad choice in subject matter, (aside from vandalism or spam), is silly and we have over ten years of experience to demonstrate that it does not happen.
In other words, the discretion already exists.

13

Who ever said it was an argument? I’m just commenting. “Straw, camel” was the argument.

What you seem to be missing is that it is being done with discretion. This didn’t happen out of the blue. It wasn’t a perfectly innocuous thread that got closed seemingly randomly. It was a troublemaking thread started by someone who has racked up a pretty long list of troublemaking threads in a pretty short time. It really is nothing but fearmongering to suggest that it’s only a short step from the mods slapping Curtis down to slapping non-problem posters displaying permissible behavior.

14

Or you could instead find another message board to “enlighten” with your many pearls of wisdom.

15

I would like to encourage KG to take this advice.

16

As would I.

17

This is not an accurate representation of what happened. First, in the thread in which he was warned, Rico did not “threaten him with banning.” What Rico actually said was:

[QUOTE=Rico]
Your posting privileges are under review as of now.
[/QUOTE]

This can indicate either suspension or banning. In the event, after discussion by the moderators, it has been decided to suspend Curtis for thirty days rather than ban him. He’s being given another chance to amend his behavior.

Second, his earlier warnings didn’t make reference to review of his posting privileges because he had not yet accumulated so many warnings . In addition, as I mentioned, Curtis was on notice that further offenses would result in review of his posting privileges.

We do take caution. Rico’s statement was based on Curtis’s previous warnings and posting history, and was completely within our norms. The staff had discussed Curtis’s behavior on many previous occasions, and any one of us issuing a warning at this stage would probably have made a similar statement.

18

What, exactly, do you think should be under review?

The moderators/Admins suspended poor Curtis a mere eighteen hours after we starting an email thread about his latest. Not exactly a rush to judgement. No one stormed the jail, took him out to a tree and hanged him. At least nine mods/admins responded in the emails with an opinion. It was nine to nothing. Even the SCOTUS doesn’t often come back with a 9/0 decision. Would you suggest term limits for the SCOTUS? Sorry, off track…

19

Frankly, I think a 30 day suspension is pretty light, considering Curtis LeMay’s history. I suspect the mods are taking his alleged age and illness into consideration, and giving him the benefit of the doubt.

20

This “general” has been one of the most consistently frustrating, annoying and provocative posters here ever since he began posting. I’m astonished that he lasted as long as he did. I don’t have anything against him personally because I don’t think he’s a bad guy at heart. He is young, immature, and apparently suffers from a social disorder; I think someday he is going to grow out of these problems. He clearly thinks a lot and this is a good thing. Eventually it may be a big advantage for him. It could happen in just a few years. The difference between 13 and 16 is huge. But until he does change his attitude, I do not want to have to see his inane threads everywhere.

The mods did the right thing.