Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[rupert THURNER]

there are guidelines for mailing lists here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I find Trillium's denied e-mail to be off-topic but hardly so objectionable
> that a moderator reviewing it should deny it. If it is the case that a
> moderator suggested minor stylistic changes (couple days to couple of
> days), that seems a bit distasteful and probably not what list members
> would imagine a moderator doing.
>
> Delays in processing moderated posts causing them to become untimely is
> something that I think is unavoidable, and the solution of course is to not
> cause yourself to be put on moderation. The mods are volunteers and have
> historically hardly been careless about placing people on moderation willy
> nilly.
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Trillium Corsage  >
> wrote:
>
> > I've been placed in "moderate" status on this list (I criticize the
> reason
> > but it would be a distraction to get into that right now). It's often
> > frustrating to receive the "rejected" notice which comes often without
> > explanation at all, and sometimes with unexplained explanation if you'll
> > tolerate the phrase i.e. "a moderator has found your email would not be
> > helpful" (why?).
> >
> > Once the moderators took like three days to disapprove my email, and
> > actually gave the reason that "the conversation has now moved on from
> that
> > point."
> >
> > Let me discuss the most recent example from last week which was
> > frustrating to me. For the sake of discussion I'll copy-paste my email in
> > question (it's at least non-offensive in any reasonable sense, and it'd
> be
> > a stretch to call it even disagreeable) at the very end of this email,
> and
> > tell you what happened.
> >
> > The email was rejected on the following bases:
> >
> > A) "I may approve this email if you change the subject to reflect the
> > content." Now, it was a response to Brigham's farewell message asking
> that
> > he answer about a matter that occurred during his tenure. Yeah, I guess I
> > could break up the email chain with a fresh header (so could the
> moderator)
> > but is this truly grounds to moderate? And as I said in the email to the
> > moderator, there was a timing issue. By the time I got the rejection
> > message, Brigham had packed his desk and exited the WMF HQ no doubt. Note
> > also that the moderator says he "may" approve if I do that. Or he may
> not.
> > So he's setting up an iterative process.
> >
> > B) The moderator then gave me two suggestions on improving my phrasing
> > within the email. For example I said "Mr. Brigham leaves in a couple
> days"
> > but the moderator preferred "couple *of* days." Is this truly basis for
> > moderation?! Minute preferences of writing style?
> >
> > C) Then came the insult. The moderator suggested I was "baiting the WMF,"
> > and copied his fellow moderators to chime in. So he's now set up my email
> > for a "consensus" style of approval. All the moderators must agree it's
> > okay. It doesn't move on one or the other them, everybody has to sign
> off.
> > My email (you can read it down below as I said) is not "baiting" (or
> > trolling which I'd argue he really meant) it describes things, makes my
> > point, refers in detail to past efforts I made to get an answer, and is
> > generally polite.
> >
> > All for your perusal on the Wikimedia-l moderation question. Anyhow, I
> did
> > feel aggravated at the time, and it turned me off to the list in general.
> > This email itself will likely be rejected, if it is I'll consider sending
> > it direct to the list participants that have commented.
> >
> > Trillium Corsage
> >
> > 26.07.2016, 14:58, "Brill Lyle" :
> > >  I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
> > >  grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even
> > when
> > >  there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
> > >  volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community
> is
> > >  already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
> > moderation.
> > >
> > >  If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based
> > on
> > >  edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and
> awful.
> > >
> > >  - Erika
> > >
> > >  *Erika Herzog*
> > >  Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
> > >*
> > >
> > >  On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>   A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on
> this
> > list
> > >>   should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the
> > list
> > >>   admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly,
> or
> > not),
> > >>   or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> > >>   transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but
> also
> > >>   embarrassing the user whatever the outcome)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Nathan]

I find Trillium's denied e-mail to be off-topic but hardly so objectionable
that a moderator reviewing it should deny it. If it is the case that a
moderator suggested minor stylistic changes (couple days to couple of
days), that seems a bit distasteful and probably not what list members
would imagine a moderator doing.

Delays in processing moderated posts causing them to become untimely is
something that I think is unavoidable, and the solution of course is to not
cause yourself to be put on moderation. The mods are volunteers and have
historically hardly been careless about placing people on moderation willy
nilly.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Trillium Corsage 
wrote:

> I've been placed in "moderate" status on this list (I criticize the reason
> but it would be a distraction to get into that right now). It's often
> frustrating to receive the "rejected" notice which comes often without
> explanation at all, and sometimes with unexplained explanation if you'll
> tolerate the phrase i.e. "a moderator has found your email would not be
> helpful" (why?).
>
> Once the moderators took like three days to disapprove my email, and
> actually gave the reason that "the conversation has now moved on from that
> point."
>
> Let me discuss the most recent example from last week which was
> frustrating to me. For the sake of discussion I'll copy-paste my email in
> question (it's at least non-offensive in any reasonable sense, and it'd be
> a stretch to call it even disagreeable) at the very end of this email, and
> tell you what happened.
>
> The email was rejected on the following bases:
>
> A) "I may approve this email if you change the subject to reflect the
> content." Now, it was a response to Brigham's farewell message asking that
> he answer about a matter that occurred during his tenure. Yeah, I guess I
> could break up the email chain with a fresh header (so could the moderator)
> but is this truly grounds to moderate? And as I said in the email to the
> moderator, there was a timing issue. By the time I got the rejection
> message, Brigham had packed his desk and exited the WMF HQ no doubt. Note
> also that the moderator says he "may" approve if I do that. Or he may not.
> So he's setting up an iterative process.
>
> B) The moderator then gave me two suggestions on improving my phrasing
> within the email. For example I said "Mr. Brigham leaves in a couple days"
> but the moderator preferred "couple *of* days." Is this truly basis for
> moderation?! Minute preferences of writing style?
>
> C) Then came the insult. The moderator suggested I was "baiting the WMF,"
> and copied his fellow moderators to chime in. So he's now set up my email
> for a "consensus" style of approval. All the moderators must agree it's
> okay. It doesn't move on one or the other them, everybody has to sign off.
> My email (you can read it down below as I said) is not "baiting" (or
> trolling which I'd argue he really meant) it describes things, makes my
> point, refers in detail to past efforts I made to get an answer, and is
> generally polite.
>
> All for your perusal on the Wikimedia-l moderation question. Anyhow, I did
> feel aggravated at the time, and it turned me off to the list in general.
> This email itself will likely be rejected, if it is I'll consider sending
> it direct to the list participants that have commented.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
> 26.07.2016, 14:58, "Brill Lyle" :
> >  I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
> >  grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even
> when
> >  there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
> >  volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community is
> >  already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
> moderation.
> >
> >  If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based
> on
> >  edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and awful.
> >
> >  - Erika
> >
> >  *Erika Herzog*
> >  Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle  >*
> >
> >  On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> >
> >>   A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this
> list
> >>   should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the
> list
> >>   admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or
> not),
> >>   or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> >>   transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also
> >>   embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
> >>
> >>   Thoughts?
> >>
> >>  A.
> >>   --
> >>   Asaf Bartov
> >>   Wikimedia Foundation 
> >
> >  ___
> >  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >  New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:

> Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for
> all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
>
>
Fair enough. My comment was meant to rather point out that we don't have
rules of behavior, and we're disputing enforcement first instead. I don't
really object to keeping moderation private or semi-private (visible to
other moderators).

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Adrian Raddatz]

Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for
all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Thanks for the input, folks.
>
> So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at
> least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too.  I
> shall proceed in that way.
>
> For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is
> *not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is
> done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real
> names most of us use here).
>
> Cheers,
>
>A.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the
> > admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a
> > string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds <
> > richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > >:
> >
> > > Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
> > This
> > > prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an
> > > individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the
> > > person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
> > >
> > > Richard Symonds
> > > Wikimedia UK
> > > 0207 065 0992
> > >
> > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> and
> > > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered
> > > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> > 4LT.
> > > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
> (who
> > > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> control
> > > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > >
> > > On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I
> was
> > > > > grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion,
> > even
> > > > when
> > > > > there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot
> of
> > > > > volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family
> community
> > is
> > > > > already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
> > > moderation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be
> > based
> > > on
> > > > > edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and
> > > awful.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Erika
> > > > >
> > > > > *Erika Herzog*
> > > > > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
> > > > >*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
> > been
> > > > helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
> > > list
> > > > to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
> > "soft
> > > > limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced
> but
> > is
> > > > still technically on the books.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: 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
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Asaf Bartov]

Thanks for the input, folks.

So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at
least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too.  I
shall proceed in that way.

For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is
*not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is
done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real
names most of us use here).

Cheers,

   A.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the
> admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a
> string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> >:
>
> > Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
> This
> > prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an
> > individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the
> > person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
> >
> > Richard Symonds
> > Wikimedia UK
> > 0207 065 0992
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> >
> > On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
> > > > grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion,
> even
> > > when
> > > > there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
> > > > volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community
> is
> > > > already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
> > moderation.
> > > >
> > > > If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be
> based
> > on
> > > > edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and
> > awful.
> > > >
> > > > - Erika
> > > >
> > > > *Erika Herzog*
> > > > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
> > > >*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
> been
> > > helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
> > list
> > > to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
> "soft
> > > limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but
> is
> > > still technically on the books.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Richard Symonds]

Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins. This
prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an
individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the
person(s) whose job it is to moderate.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
>
> > I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
> > grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even
> when
> > there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
> > volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community is
> > already being required of many of us. So I would vote against moderation.
> >
> > If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based on
> > edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and awful.
> >
> > - Erika
> >
> > *Erika Herzog*
> > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle  >*
>
>
>
> We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has been
> helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this list
> to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a "soft
> limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but is
> still technically on the books.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Brill Lyle]

I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was
grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion, even when
there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of
volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community is
already being required of many of us. So I would vote against moderation.

If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be based on
edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and awful.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this list
> should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the list
> admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or not),
> or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also
> embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Alessandro Marchetti]

Should the very first step be contacting the person involved? Maybe even if 
this last attempt of private moderation fails, you can both agree that 
discussing in public about the problem is no problem for him/her.  

Il Martedì 26 Luglio 2016 10:40, Tomasz Ganicz  ha 
scritto:
 

 Maybe the best model would be such:
#1 A person willing to switch on moderation on someone contact an admin -
good reasons for moderation is required
#2 If admin decides not to moderate - inform proponent about it. End of
story.
#3 If admin decides to moderate - inform about this both proponent and the
person to be moderated and ask moderated person if he/she wants to announce
this on the list.
#4 If she/he wants to have it announced on this list - admin do it with
explanation of the reasons.

+

#5 - asking for moderation of someone on this list - ends up with
moderation of the proponent :-)



2016-07-26 10:26 GMT+02:00 Asaf Bartov :

> A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this list
> should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the list
> admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or not),
> or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also
> embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>    A.
> --
>    Asaf Bartov
>    Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Tomasz Ganicz]

Maybe the best model would be such:
#1 A person willing to switch on moderation on someone contact an admin -
good reasons for moderation is required
#2 If admin decides not to moderate - inform proponent about it. End of
story.
#3 If admin decides to moderate - inform about this both proponent and the
person to be moderated and ask moderated person if he/she wants to announce
this on the list.
#4 If she/he wants to have it announced on this list - admin do it with
explanation of the reasons.

+

#5 - asking for moderation of someone on this list - ends up with
moderation of the proponent :-)



2016-07-26 10:26 GMT+02:00 Asaf Bartov :

> A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this list
> should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the list
> admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or not),
> or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also
> embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,