Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Richard Ames]

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  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/Guidelines&action=history
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelines&oldid=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
 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,



___
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, 




--
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Theo10011]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014, Richard Ames  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/Guidelines&action=history
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelines&oldid=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
>>  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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Isarra Yos]

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  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Fæ]

On 12/07/2014, Russavia  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Russavia]

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  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  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" :
> > > 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
> > >  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,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Richard Ames]

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
 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Risker]

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  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" :
> > 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
> >  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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Trillium Corsage]

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" :
> 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
>  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, 
> 

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy

[Fæ]

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
 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,