Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Fæ an Theo have made some good points please have a look at the talk page of the guidelines and suggest what may be moved to the guidelines themselves or BB possible more discussion needed. Richard. On 13/07/14 00:16, Theo10011 wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: I think it is very difficult to have hard 'rules'. The guidelines have been published and are referred to in the footer of each messages sent from this list. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Ya, those are far from established or instructive in cases of moderator involvement. I started those[1], and even I don't agree with the current draft. They weren't written for Foundation-l/Wikimedia-l necessarily, originally proposed on a private, now defunct list and edited by a small minority from there. To the best of my recollection, there was no vetting by a larger community at the time. That page had a dedicated section about moderation[2], and suggested practices that were removed all together - with guidelines to warn before any moderator action, along with a recourse in case of disputes. A somewhat similar approach as admin actions. I suppose they could still be used as a starting point, if there is a need to have these written down. -Theo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesaction=history [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesoldid=3544960 Regards, Richard. On 11/07/14 20:28, Fæ wrote: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- The greatest collection of shared knowledge in history. Help Wikipedia, participate now: http://wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
On 12/07/2014, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: ... the door completely with their backdoor continued accusations which are made without a shred of proof. Referring to Richard's post, the general list guidelines apply[1] and there is an explanation of the admin role[2]. However neither of these documents sets a policy for whether administrators on this list have a duty to reply to emails from a participant when they ask why they have been moderated or blocked, nor whether they have to give an explanation when action is taken so that the person being moderated or blocked can have the opportunity to understand the issue, change their behaviour and have a path to get unblocked or unmoderated. As with Russavia's case above, there may be people who are thought to be problematic due to a history on Wikimedia projects, perhaps they will always be unwelcome on this list, however the vast majority of bans or moderated accounts ought to be based solely on evidence of posts to this list. However, there is no downside to letting people ask the question why was I moderated? or go on to appeal moderation or a ban if they wish, preferably as a public process so that others affected are free to comment with evidence. It may be beneficial to consider adding a project whereby moderation or banning can be requested publicly, rather than by closed emails. I still hold the view that a policy beyond the standard general nuts-and-bolts guidelines which ensures a greater level of transparency compared to the de facto closeted and apparently sometimes silent process we have settled for, would be of benefit to all contributors of this list. Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Administration Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
I don't really have anything to add, but I think Fae makes some good points here. On 12/07/14 08:04, Fæ wrote: On 12/07/2014, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: ... the door completely with their backdoor continued accusations which are made without a shred of proof. Referring to Richard's post, the general list guidelines apply[1] and there is an explanation of the admin role[2]. However neither of these documents sets a policy for whether administrators on this list have a duty to reply to emails from a participant when they ask why they have been moderated or blocked, nor whether they have to give an explanation when action is taken so that the person being moderated or blocked can have the opportunity to understand the issue, change their behaviour and have a path to get unblocked or unmoderated. As with Russavia's case above, there may be people who are thought to be problematic due to a history on Wikimedia projects, perhaps they will always be unwelcome on this list, however the vast majority of bans or moderated accounts ought to be based solely on evidence of posts to this list. However, there is no downside to letting people ask the question why was I moderated? or go on to appeal moderation or a ban if they wish, preferably as a public process so that others affected are free to comment with evidence. It may be beneficial to consider adding a project whereby moderation or banning can be requested publicly, rather than by closed emails. I still hold the view that a policy beyond the standard general nuts-and-bolts guidelines which ensures a greater level of transparency compared to the de facto closeted and apparently sometimes silent process we have settled for, would be of benefit to all contributors of this list. Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Administration Fae I guess the way I see it, there will always be exceptions, but anyone worth letting (back) on the list in the first place probably deserves at least some sort of transparency. The overhead required to actually do that could prove problematic, though. I don't know. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: I think it is very difficult to have hard 'rules'. The guidelines have been published and are referred to in the footer of each messages sent from this list. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Ya, those are far from established or instructive in cases of moderator involvement. I started those[1], and even I don't agree with the current draft. They weren't written for Foundation-l/Wikimedia-l necessarily, originally proposed on a private, now defunct list and edited by a small minority from there. To the best of my recollection, there was no vetting by a larger community at the time. That page had a dedicated section about moderation[2], and suggested practices that were removed all together - with guidelines to warn before any moderator action, along with a recourse in case of disputes. A somewhat similar approach as admin actions. I suppose they could still be used as a starting point, if there is a need to have these written down. -Theo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesaction=history [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelinesoldid=3544960 Regards, Richard. On 11/07/14 20:28, Fæ wrote: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Hi Fae, I was banned from the list by Austin Hair. I had contributed in my view a lot of good and polite stuff that was reasonably reasoned, but he banned me on the basis of a 17-word parenthetical phrase regarding arbitrator Timotheus Canens. I said that I had read it claimed that he was connected to Chinese military intelligence. Is that a reason to ban me? I emailed him, and then repeat emailed him to talk to me about it. I was met by silence. I wasn't going to get upset about it, and didn't. I figure Austin just another type who got moderator privilege on a mailing list. It's not even worth it to criticize him, but I guess I'll notice he banned me within minutes, and he hasn't posted to the list anything since, and I don't recall him ever contributing a email of substantive opinion since I joined the list. I logged on here today with the aim of unsubscribing to the list, but I'll keep reading long enough to see if your below email asking for transparency on the list goes anywhere. Good luck. Trillium Corsage 11.07.2014, 11:28, Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae (P.S. I am active on the English Wikipedia where I have a GA on the go, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae. Sorry to disappoint, but reports of my retirement are premature.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Actually, Trillium Corsage, I'd say that's a reason for banning you again. It's a very serious allegation you're implying about a longstanding member of our community. Risker On 11 July 2014 14:24, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Hi Fae, I was banned from the list by Austin Hair. I had contributed in my view a lot of good and polite stuff that was reasonably reasoned, but he banned me on the basis of a 17-word parenthetical phrase regarding arbitrator Timotheus Canens. I said that I had read it claimed that he was connected to Chinese military intelligence. Is that a reason to ban me? I emailed him, and then repeat emailed him to talk to me about it. I was met by silence. I wasn't going to get upset about it, and didn't. I figure Austin just another type who got moderator privilege on a mailing list. It's not even worth it to criticize him, but I guess I'll notice he banned me within minutes, and he hasn't posted to the list anything since, and I don't recall him ever contributing a email of substantive opinion since I joined the list. I logged on here today with the aim of unsubscribing to the list, but I'll keep reading long enough to see if your below email asking for transparency on the list goes anywhere. Good luck. Trillium Corsage 11.07.2014, 11:28, Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae (P.S. I am active on the English Wikipedia where I have a GA on the go, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae. Sorry to disappoint, but reports of my retirement are premature.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
I think it is very difficult to have hard 'rules'. The guidelines have been published and are referred to in the footer of each messages sent from this list. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines I have added a link to these to the list info page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l and will transfer it to the list info page if there is no objection. Regards, Richard. On 11/07/14 20:28, Fæ wrote: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
For almost 2 years I was put under intense harassment on English Wikipedia by one the vilest groups that Wikipedia has seen--the EEML,[1] and one of the accusations that was often levelled against me is that I was an agent of the Russian government. And for 2 years the Community stood by and did absolutely nothing -- except for blocking me numerous times and eventually indefinitely topic banning me. In fact, the suggestion was even made by a long-standing member of the Community that an anonymous tip should be made naming me as a Russian spy.[2] Such accusations are never acceptable, and Trillium Corsage should be shown the door completely with their backdoor continued accusations which are made without a shred of proof. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EEML [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Discussions_relating_to_stalking.2Fharrassing_myself_in_real_life On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, Trillium Corsage, I'd say that's a reason for banning you again. It's a very serious allegation you're implying about a longstanding member of our community. Risker On 11 July 2014 14:24, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: Hi Fae, I was banned from the list by Austin Hair. I had contributed in my view a lot of good and polite stuff that was reasonably reasoned, but he banned me on the basis of a 17-word parenthetical phrase regarding arbitrator Timotheus Canens. I said that I had read it claimed that he was connected to Chinese military intelligence. Is that a reason to ban me? I emailed him, and then repeat emailed him to talk to me about it. I was met by silence. I wasn't going to get upset about it, and didn't. I figure Austin just another type who got moderator privilege on a mailing list. It's not even worth it to criticize him, but I guess I'll notice he banned me within minutes, and he hasn't posted to the list anything since, and I don't recall him ever contributing a email of substantive opinion since I joined the list. I logged on here today with the aim of unsubscribing to the list, but I'll keep reading long enough to see if your below email asking for transparency on the list goes anywhere. Good luck. Trillium Corsage 11.07.2014, 11:28, Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae (P.S. I am active on the English Wikipedia where I have a GA on the go, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae. Sorry to disappoint, but reports of my retirement are premature.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
