[Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Asaf Bartov-2
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Tomasz Ganicz
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Alessandro Marchetti
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

 
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Brill Lyle
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Nathan Awrich
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Richard Symonds-3
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Lodewijk
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 <[hidden email]
>:

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Asaf Bartov-2
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]
> >:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]>
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Adrian Raddatz
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Lane Rasberry
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Peter Southwood
I will second this suggestion
Cheers
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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 mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Brill Lyle
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 <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]>:
> >  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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

rupert THURNER-2
there are guidelines for mailing lists here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> 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" <[hidden email]>:
> > >  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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>