there are guidelines for mailing lists here:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> 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
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2...@yandex.com
> > I've been placed in "moderate" status on this list (I criticize the
> > 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
> > 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
> > a stretch to call it even disagreeable) at the very end of this email,
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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" <wp.brilll...@gmail.com>:
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > >
> > > - Erika
> > >
> > > *Erika Herzog*
> > > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
> > >*
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on
> > list
> > >> should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the
> > list
> > >> admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly,
> > not),
> > >> or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being
> > >> transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but
> > >> embarrassing the user whatever the outcome).
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> A.
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > <begin text rejected Trillium Corsage email>
> > Mr. Brigham, although I've disagreed with some of the legally-meaningful
> > actions taken by WMF during your tenure as well as the light actions
> > against abusive administrative participants such as JurgenNL and
> > in the Moiramoira affair, I wish no person ill and in fact say good luck
> > you at Youtube.
> > However since you're still on the clock so to speak at WMF for another
> > couple days, I'm asking you to give a bit more description on the board's
> > move about 18 months to remove the identification requirement for those
> > volunteer administrative participants it accords access to the non-public
> > information (IPs, cookies, etc.) of regular editors.
> > I found this to be quite a betrayal of the rank and file editors whom had
> > been led to believe the WMF assumed at least some responsibility, i.e.
> > who they are, for the online-privacy-affecting actions of the
> > administrators, checkusers, oversighters, arbs, stewards, and UTRS/OTRS
> > volunteers. You must have recommended the change to proceed, or at least
> > not counseled against it, otherwise the board wouldn't have done so. Why
> > did you do it?
> > Rest assured I have looked all over for explanation and anything you
> > have said. I don't come and ask you this on the Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > without having looked hard. I'm aware that Samuel J. Klein was the board
> > member that raised the motion. When I asked him about it, he was
> > unresponsive and terse except to say I should look over his previous
> > statements on the matter, not linking me to any. I looked all over for
> > Samuel's public statements on the matter but they seem to be a rare
> > as I spied none at all.
> > Lastly, I'm aware that the new access to non-public information policy
> > requires the administrative participant to log on to some system, check a
> > box indicating he or she has read the policy, and then "enter a name."
> > you (or anyone?) point to me to a WMF person who can provide the
> > and other information as to how many have provided their names, how
> > accesses were removed as a consequence of *not* providing their names,
> > exactly is accepted as a "name," what occurs when the administrative
> > participant inputs for examples just a first name, or a nickname, or a
> > username?
> > Appreciate your reading, and thanks in advance for answering.
> > <end text rejected Trillium Corsage email>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org