So I have been on the moderation list for this mailing list for 10 months now.
In the meantime, I have had perfectly valid e-mails sent to this list rejected without a reason, and my appeal not getting any response whatsoever from the moderators.
If this were a wiki, everyone would be shouting themselves hoarse at having people blocked for such a long time, and seemingly without any means of protesting such decisions.
However, this being a mailing list, with the moderation team having no accountability to anyone, and abusing their status multiple times in the past year, such decisions come without any discussion -- mostly because they are made behind closed doors in the spirit of Wikimedia transparency.
So, here is my good-faith attempt at getting taken off the moderation list after ten months of waiting, and perhaps having a stab at finally establishing at least some basic rules of moderator behaviour so that we do not see long-term good-faith contributors hushed up due to expressing criticisms.
-- Tomasz
I did attempt a getting a discussion going on defining some moderation and appeal guidelines last year on meta, but it died of death after some unfortunately pointy disruptive interventions. At the moment moderation can happen without warning, without a rationale being given when requested and with no possibility of appeal.
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated without a clear explanation or evidence, questions about it after a year on moderation being met with silence (which itself just seem unnecessarily hostile) and having emails unposted for up to 18 days at at time, it would be great to have a best practice defined for all Wikimedia lists as to: * when a moderation rational is expected, such as for well established contributors on request * a reasonable appeal process, such as on a meta page devoted to appeals
The current absence of a system just encourages drama and polarization of viewpoints, confuses readers as emails held for a long time on moderation get posted retrospectively into old discussions, and ignores one of our basic principles on Wikimedia projects that improvement and reform should be encouraged. We have plenty of examples of people being disruptive for a time on projects who later become some of our top contributors, possibly as these are dissatisfied people pushing for change; there is no reason to think that email lists are different.
Fae
On 9 June 2015 at 11:33, Tomasz W. Kozłowski twkozlowski@gmail.com wrote:
So I have been on the moderation list for this mailing list for 10 months now.
In the meantime, I have had perfectly valid e-mails sent to this list rejected without a reason, and my appeal not getting any response whatsoever from the moderators.
If this were a wiki, everyone would be shouting themselves hoarse at having people blocked for such a long time, and seemingly without any means of protesting such decisions.
However, this being a mailing list, with the moderation team having no accountability to anyone, and abusing their status multiple times in the past year, such decisions come without any discussion -- mostly because they are made behind closed doors in the spirit of Wikimedia transparency.
So, here is my good-faith attempt at getting taken off the moderation list after ten months of waiting, and perhaps having a stab at finally establishing at least some basic rules of moderator behaviour so that we do not see long-term good-faith contributors hushed up due to expressing criticisms.
-- Tomasz
On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated without a clear explanation or evidence,
This claim is factually inaccurate. You were put on mod on wikimediauk-l after multiple complaints from other readers about repeated obnoxious behaviour on your part, particularly when you started again after promising you'd stop.
You're off mod now, but please don't start up again.
- d.
Thanks.
Note that secret complaints or allegations that are not shared, are neither evidence nor a clear rationale for the moderated person.
An open and transparent process is desirable for everyone.
Fae On 9 Jun 2015 13:04, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated without a clear explanation or evidence,
This claim is factually inaccurate. You were put on mod on wikimediauk-l after multiple complaints from other readers about repeated obnoxious behaviour on your part, particularly when you started again after promising you'd stop.
You're off mod now, but please don't start up again.
- d.
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
funny, close list, close decisions, heavy moderation... this is away more present on Wikimedia Movement than should be, but the speech is always the opposite... The "free" is just a slogan, it's not a value...
On 9 June 2015 at 09:24, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks.
Note that secret complaints or allegations that are not shared, are neither evidence nor a clear rationale for the moderated person.
An open and transparent process is desirable for everyone.
Fae On 9 Jun 2015 13:04, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated without a clear explanation or evidence,
This claim is factually inaccurate. You were put on mod on wikimediauk-l after multiple complaints from other readers about repeated obnoxious behaviour on your part, particularly when you started again after promising you'd stop.
You're off mod now, but please don't start up again.
- d.
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
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
The farther you go from actually wiki the more cabals you get. Secret teams, secret decisions, powers in single hand or in hand of a tiny group of people selected by criteria unknown. It goes for lists, chats, social media pages and whatever out-of-wiki stuff. It's too sad why can't wikimedia way of open transparent collaboration and discussion be extended on all wikimedia related activity. I'm a naïve person and just don't get it. Aren't we the same people when onwiki and offwiki?
This one example is just one of the many others.
It's obvious that such a thing as moderation of a list should be done by some rules. It's not a tiny list where just believing in common sense of moderators can work. Moderation is like RfD of a sort. We don't just have random admins deleting pages onwiki as they wish. Why do we have it this way with messages on list?
Can someone bring an RfC or whatever large thing onwiki in order to have it regulated finally?
--Base
On 09.06.2015 20:28, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
funny, close list, close decisions, heavy moderation... this is away more present on Wikimedia Movement than should be, but the speech is always the opposite... The "free" is just a slogan, it's not a value...
On 9 June 2015 at 09:24, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks.
Note that secret complaints or allegations that are not shared, are neither evidence nor a clear rationale for the moderated person.
An open and transparent process is desirable for everyone.
Fae On 9 Jun 2015 13:04, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated without a clear explanation or evidence,
This claim is factually inaccurate. You were put on mod on wikimediauk-l after multiple complaints from other readers about repeated obnoxious behaviour on your part, particularly when you started again after promising you'd stop.
You're off mod now, but please don't start up again.
- d.
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
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
"on-wiki" and "off-wiki" are concepts that get talked about a lot without critical examination. As I understand it, the issue of something happening "off-wiki" is often that a certain entity (for instance, English Wikipedia's ArbCom) has no ability to enforce what happens off the site, and little ability to verify that a person using a username elsewhere is the same person.
But that isn't an issue with a mailing list. Nobody is proposing that any specific wiki have jurisdiction over a mailing list.
A mailing list of the size and significance of Wikimedia-L should have reliable and reasonable governance. I am pretty confident that we don't have it here because Wikimedia-L has grown gradually from an earlier time when governance was less necessary -- not out of any ill intent of any person or people.
Fae, I'm glad to hear you started a discussion about this on Meta. Can you provide a link, or start where it left off? What's required, I think, is that (1) somebody presents a proposal, (2) the proposal gets discussed and refined, and then (3) we have some kind of process for establishing whether there is broad buy-in.
Who's ready to take that first step? I'd be happy to engage in deliberations around this, but I don't have a specific proposal in mind to start things off.
As to Tomasz' specific request, I strongly support it. I vaguely recall hearing about him being placed on moderation, and thinking it was an overly harsh step -- but to hear that it's gone on for 10 months, and that some of his messages have not been allowed through in the meantime, does sound problematic to me. Tomasz is a thoughtful and valued member of the Wikimedia world, and this list is a better list if it's informed by his perspective.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
The farther you go from actually wiki the more cabals you get. Secret teams, secret decisions, powers in single hand or in hand of a tiny group of people selected by criteria unknown. It goes for lists, chats, social media pages and whatever out-of-wiki stuff. It's too sad why can't wikimedia way of open transparent collaboration and discussion be extended on all wikimedia related activity. I'm a naïve person and just don't get it. Aren't we the same people when onwiki and offwiki?
This one example is just one of the many others.
It's obvious that such a thing as moderation of a list should be done by some rules. It's not a tiny list where just believing in common sense of moderators can work. Moderation is like RfD of a sort. We don't just have random admins deleting pages onwiki as they wish. Why do we have it this way with messages on list?
Can someone bring an RfC or whatever large thing onwiki in order to have it regulated finally?
--Base
On 09.06.2015 20:28, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
funny, close list, close decisions, heavy moderation... this is away more present on Wikimedia Movement than should be, but the speech is always the opposite... The "free" is just a slogan, it's not a value...
On 9 June 2015 at 09:24, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks.
Note that secret complaints or allegations that are not shared, are neither evidence nor a clear rationale for the moderated person.
An open and transparent process is desirable for everyone.
Fae On 9 Jun 2015 13:04, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Considering my poor experience on another list of being moderated
without a clear explanation or evidence,
This claim is factually inaccurate. You were put on mod on wikimediauk-l after multiple complaints from other readers about repeated obnoxious behaviour on your part, particularly when you started again after promising you'd stop.
You're off mod now, but please don't start up again.
- d.
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
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
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
See:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and their talk pages.
Regards, Richard.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Who's ready to take that first step? I'd be happy to engage in deliberations around this, but I don't have a specific proposal in mind to start things off.
Thank you Richard. Yes, no doubt those are excellent venues for discussing and refining proposals and so forth. But neither one establishes the kind of governance Tomasz has mentioned. For instance, while those pages mention moderation in passing, they don't say anything about: * how moderators are/should be selected * how they should go about their duties * what should happen when list members disagree with specific decisions * what should happen when list members feel there is a pattern of unhealthy decisions * whether moderators' terms ever end
And the talk pages have no new proposals this year.
If we want to get to a better place with this, somebody needs to lead the charge.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Richard Ames richard@ames.id.au wrote:
See:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and their talk pages.
Regards, Richard.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Who's ready to take that first step? I'd be happy to engage in deliberations around this, but I don't have a specific proposal in mind
to
start things off.
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org