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 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