On Sat, Jul 12, 2014, Richard Ames richard@ames.id.au wrote:
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.....
Ya, those are far from established or instructive in cases of moderator involvement. I started those[1], and even I don't agree with the current draft. They weren't written for Foundation-l/Wikimedia-l necessarily, originally proposed on a private, now defunct list and edited by a small minority from there. To the best of my recollection, there was no vetting by a larger community at the time.
That page had a dedicated section about moderation[2], and suggested practices that were removed all together - with guidelines to warn before any moderator action, along with a recourse in case of disputes. A somewhat similar approach as admin actions. I suppose they could still be used as a starting point, if there is a need to have these written down.
-Theo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelines&ac... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mailing_lists/Guidelines&ol...
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
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