On 9 June 2015 at 12:08, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884

"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(a)yandex.ru> wrote:

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(a)ames.id.au> wrote: