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.wikipedia@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
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
- 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