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.
Maybe the best model would be such: #1 A person willing to switch on moderation on someone contact an admin - good reasons for moderation is required #2 If admin decides not to moderate - inform proponent about it. End of story. #3 If admin decides to moderate - inform about this both proponent and the person to be moderated and ask moderated person if he/she wants to announce this on the list. #4 If she/he wants to have it announced on this list - admin do it with explanation of the reasons.
+
#5 - asking for moderation of someone on this list - ends up with moderation of the proponent :-)
2016-07-26 10:26 GMT+02:00 Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
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>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.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
Should the very first step be contacting the person involved? Maybe even if this last attempt of private moderation fails, you can both agree that discussing in public about the problem is no problem for him/her.
Il Martedì 26 Luglio 2016 10:40, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com ha scritto:
Maybe the best model would be such: #1 A person willing to switch on moderation on someone contact an admin - good reasons for moderation is required #2 If admin decides not to moderate - inform proponent about it. End of story. #3 If admin decides to moderate - inform about this both proponent and the person to be moderated and ask moderated person if he/she wants to announce this on the list. #4 If she/he wants to have it announced on this list - admin do it with explanation of the reasons.
+
#5 - asking for moderation of someone on this list - ends up with moderation of the proponent :-)
2016-07-26 10:26 GMT+02:00 Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
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
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.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
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?
my preference would be to try to follow wiki rules&norms relatively closely. I perceive moderation as a technical result of norms that are agreed upon, and I don't think we have those for the list, frankly :) that's why different behaviors may trigger moderation, and result in a perceived unjustice/arbitrary application.
dj
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>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
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*
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has been helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this list to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but is still technically on the books.
Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins. This prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
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
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has been helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this list to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but is still technically on the books. _______________________________________________ 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
As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
Lodewijk
2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds <richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk
:
Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins. This prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
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
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has been helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
list
to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but is still technically on the books. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Thanks for the input, folks.
So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too. I shall proceed in that way.
For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is *not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real names most of us use here).
Cheers,
A.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
Lodewijk
2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk
:
Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
This
prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
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
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
been
helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
list
to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
"soft
limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but
is
still technically on the books. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
Adrian Raddatz
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks for the input, folks.
So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too. I shall proceed in that way.
For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is *not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real names most of us use here).
Cheers,
A.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
Lodewijk
2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk
:
Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
This
prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
(who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
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
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
been
helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
list
to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
"soft
limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced
but
is
still technically on the books. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.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
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
Fair enough. My comment was meant to rather point out that we don't have rules of behavior, and we're disputing enforcement first instead. I don't really object to keeping moderation private or semi-private (visible to other moderators).
dj
Hello,
I do not care how moderation happens, but I do advocate for some trusted party behind the scenes keeping research records on these things. Such records would raise awareness about the extent to which moderation practices are influencing community membership.
Too often in wiki projects moderation happens without creating any record. Privacy has to be respected, and some offenses and accusations cannot be discussed publicly, but at least I wish the community and public could know how many times secret police actions are happening. Whatever the current practice is, I wish that some information could be passed to the future for longer term planning and reflection.
It would be nice to get regular feedback, perhaps yearly, which said for example, "In 2016 3 community members were blocked. 5 were formally admonished." Behavioral regulation happens in all sorts of wiki places and it worries me that when it happens, the observers have some pressure on them to not discuss it and there is no one keeping track of when this happens. I would feel more comfortable knowing about how often such things occur so that I would know if this is common, uncommon, being used more or less as compared to the past, or whatever the case may be.
No process is ever going to be perfect, and I do not want to pressure any moderators to try to have perfect practice or even more than mediocre practice. But I do think it should be required that if moderation happens, someone ought to centrally note that it happened without any judgement about who moderated who or why. The central notes should be reported back to the community after some time.
yours,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
Fair enough. My comment was meant to rather point out that we don't have rules of behavior, and we're disputing enforcement first instead. I don't really object to keeping moderation private or semi-private (visible to other moderators).
dj _______________________________________________ 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
I will second this suggestion Cheers Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lane Rasberry Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 9:00 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation
Hello,
I do not care how moderation happens, but I do advocate for some trusted party behind the scenes keeping research records on these things. Such records would raise awareness about the extent to which moderation practices are influencing community membership.
Too often in wiki projects moderation happens without creating any record. Privacy has to be respected, and some offenses and accusations cannot be discussed publicly, but at least I wish the community and public could know how many times secret police actions are happening. Whatever the current practice is, I wish that some information could be passed to the future for longer term planning and reflection.
It would be nice to get regular feedback, perhaps yearly, which said for example, "In 2016 3 community members were blocked. 5 were formally admonished." Behavioral regulation happens in all sorts of wiki places and it worries me that when it happens, the observers have some pressure on them to not discuss it and there is no one keeping track of when this happens. I would feel more comfortable knowing about how often such things occur so that I would know if this is common, uncommon, being used more or less as compared to the past, or whatever the case may be.
No process is ever going to be perfect, and I do not want to pressure any moderators to try to have perfect practice or even more than mediocre practice. But I do think it should be required that if moderation happens, someone ought to centrally note that it happened without any judgement about who moderated who or why. The central notes should be reported back to the community after some time.
yours,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
Fair enough. My comment was meant to rather point out that we don't have rules of behavior, and we're disputing enforcement first instead. I don't really object to keeping moderation private or semi-private (visible to other moderators).
dj _______________________________________________ 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
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12685 - Release Date: 07/26/16
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org