Hi Austin,
My wording was carefully chosen, but probably not obvious enough. I used "working practices on lists", I was not actually referring to *this* list where working practices are now, in my opinion, better than many others.
In fact, it would be great if you could spend time on the meta page previously linked, suggesting what good practices you use here that might help run other lists in a more mellow fashion.
Thanks, Fae
On 12/08/2014, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Current working practices on lists include never being informed that it happened and never getting a reply to a polite request of why the moderation is in place, along with there being no possibility of appeal or timely review. More complex issues, such as moderators taking action on participants with whom they are actively involved in disputes, are not covered by any current guideline.
I do have to dispute this. While I did not explicitly say "I have set your moderation bit," and in retrospect should have, I believe that there's a fairly obvious conclusion to be drawn when a list administrator tells you that your behavior is unacceptable and your next message is not immediately posted.
What I take the most issue with is that, contrary to what John has said, I did not receive a single request—polite or otherwise—from Tomasz directly, or (so far as gmail's search function can determine) any inquiry at all regarding moderation prior to John's e-mail to the list.
The matter was clarified within minutes of it being brought to my attention. I don't know what, if not that, constitutes "timely review" for you, Fae.
Austin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe