Moderation acts to regulate the current activity of the wiki and prevent, undo, notify, or combat any perceived wrongdoing. However, moderation is not perfect, meaning that any possible rule-break has a chance of going unnoticed by a moderator. When this rule-break is caught at a later time, several factors go into consideration before any further action is taken.
Staff is alerted[]
Rules against and definitions for "mini-modding" can be tricky, which here is especially true. If a moderator is active at the time, and a regular user spots a potential uncaught rule-break, the advised course of action is to directly alert on-wiki staff, such as on their user talk page or, if possible, in Discord.
Action is taken[]
With the staff alerted, action will usually be taken against the offense and offender, usually resulting in a friendly notice or an official warning.
Action is not taken[]
If the staff member in question has been alerted but does not eventually respond to the offense, it is advised to contact another staff member. If action is not taken again, do not consult another moderator. Whether through negligence or private deliberation, the conclusion is that the offender will not be subject to regulatory behavior and thus gets off "scot-free."
Staff is not alerted[]
In the case that regular users either also do not catch the misstep, or they simply do not alert staff, the offense in question is considered to go unnoticed.
Offender is alerted[]
Though a moderator may not have been alerted of the offense, regular uses may instead opt to speak and notify the offender directly of their rule-break. This is not advised. However, in these cases, the offender may be able to prevent punitive action against themselves.
Offender undoes offense[]
The offender may be able to evade regulatory behavior if they themselves undo their perceived offense. This can be demonstrated by editing their own personal property to remove profane or unacceptable language, or even by the offender themselves contacting an administrator to notify them of the perceived offense. Depending on the severity of the violation, this can be a valid approach to not receive a warning.
Staff is not alerted and offender does not undo offense[]
Regular users may end up contacting neither moderation nor the offender (or the offender is contacted but does not comply), allowing the perceived offense to go on completely unchecked.
Violation is not spotted later on[]
In this case, any other order of events will either eventually occur, or the perceived offense will simply go on unnoticed by everyone.
Violation is spotted later on[]
Depending on the magnitude of the offense, the evolution of the rules over the elapsed time, and the amount of time elapsed, regulatory behavior may or may not be taken.
Action is taken[]
Action is taken when the three factors prove to not be substantial enough. For example, if only a day has passed, or if the rules have not changed considerably, or if the perceived offense was reprehensible behavior, then punitive action will most likely be taken.
Action is not taken[]
Action is not taken when the three factors prove to be substantial enough. For example, if over a few weeks have passed, or if the perceived offense is only a violation through a retroactive application of the current rules, or if the perceived offense is a minor infraction, then punitive action will most likely not be taken.
Subjectivity in moderation[]
Law is not rigid, and the vessels of justice that carry the law out interpret it differently. On a smaller scale, this applies to the wiki. Whether any of the three aforementioned factors are "substantial enough" truly depends on the moderator that spots the perceived offense. Even if the violation is brought up between multiple staff members, their judgments may change over time, meaning that their verdicts may not always be completely internally consistent.