Thread:RRabbit42/@comment-4751060-20150405210758/@comment-961279-20150406040056

I've seen Buckimon be pretty heavy-handed when setting blocks for what appear to be first-time offenses. I don't know all the history behind the reasons, of course, but for example, if I saw only one edit under an IP/account and the block was for a year, I'd wonder why that long of a block was necessary.

He is correct in that I do allow a bit more leniency here than maybe I should. It comes from the following:


 * being on the receiving end of heavy-handedness by an administrator that was unsuited for those responsibilities (in short, taking a sincere offer to help and turning it into an accusation of harassment)
 * a philosophy of "everyone deserves a second chance, even after they've proven they wouldn't accept the second chance"
 * trying to empathize with the user by saying, "how would I feel if I made a mistake and someone stomped all over me for it?"
 * seeing oppressiveness and heavy-handedness by the former admins of this wiki.
 * knowing that sometimes a bad edit is just someone "playing around" and you don't have to make a big deal out of it

Finally, when I set a block, I always remember that I have to have a legitimate reason for that block. It can't just be "I don't like that person" or "they're being stupid, so they're outta here". In essence, every record in the block log is something that Wikia has a right to question me about, so I need to be able to provide proof to justify it. And when I do set a block, I do have sufficient reason that I can provide to justify it to anyone that asks.