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 > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>