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 nilly.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Trillium Corsage trillium2014@yandex.com wrote:
I've been placed in "moderate" status on this list (I criticize the reason 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 that 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 be a stretch to call it even disagreeable) at the very end of this email, and 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 that 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 moderator) 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 not. 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 days" 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 off. 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 did 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.brilllyle@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 is 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 awful.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
A meta-question: I am wondering whether, if one thinks a user on this
list
should be moderated, it is better to discuss it privately with the
list
admins (who, if convinced, could announce the moderation publicly, or
not),
or publicly on this list (explicitly inviting more opinions, being transparent about my position regarding moderating the user, but also 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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 taken against abusive administrative participants such as JurgenNL and TBloemink in the Moiramoira affair, I wish no person ill and in fact say good luck to 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. know 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 might 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 public 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 species 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." Can you (or anyone?) point to me to a WMF person who can provide the statistics and other information as to how many have provided their names, how many's accesses were removed as a consequence of *not* providing their names, what 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>