Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:13 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > >> I watched that thread spiral out of control and I think the mods did >> the right thing. >> >> Is Will off moderation now? >> > > At the moment he remains on moderation, and I'm discussing the matter with > Austin and Alexandr. Last year, Will was placed on moderation for similar > problematic posts, so personally, I'd like to see that his posts improve > before taking him off moderation. Fair enough. It is good to see his emails are getting through and discussion among the list admins is happening. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:13 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > I watched that thread spiral out of control and I think the mods did > the right thing. > > Is Will off moderation now? > At the moment he remains on moderation, and I'm discussing the matter with Austin and Alexandr. Last year, Will was placed on moderation for similar problematic posts, so personally, I'd like to see that his posts improve before taking him off moderation. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) ...
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:47:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, aph...@gmail.com writes: > After I mentioned Wikimedia troll, Will thought it meant him and sent > me some mails. I told him it was an in-joke (Bostonian Maniacs may > remember that) but not further. Besides annotation to a joke is dull, > apparently he was caught in a bad faith and no further words might > work I foresaw. >> > I wish people would stop assuming what is in my mind. I asked you what you meant, you said it was an in-joke and I asked you again what you meant. I was not "caught in a bad faith". I was asking you... what you meant. And that is all that occurred. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
I watched that thread spiral out of control and I think the mods did the right thing. Is Will off moderation now? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
I love your recent message, Birgitte, it was well written and thoughtful. On the other hand I'm doubtful it worked to cool down those who got involved: some may have taken it to lose his face, or not. Things may sometimes work weirdly, out of control and original intention. Not saying the best, but other way of attempt to cool down is to speak off-list. Heuristically it works often. Not always, though. There would be no snake oil. After I mentioned Wikimedia troll, Will thought it meant him and sent me some mails. I told him it was an in-joke (Bostonian Maniacs may remember that) but not further. Besides annotation to a joke is dull, apparently he was caught in a bad faith and no further words might work I foresaw. Not only ban but also moderation shouldn't be taken lightly. I think however our moderator acted rightly in this case. Hope this moderation works to a good direction as intended. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: Ryan Lomonaco >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >> Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:37:17 PM >> Subject: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of >>requests) be published?) >> >> >> >> - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down >> discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post >> imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be >> very helpful. >> > > > My last message to Will was not the best I could have sent. I rushed it off > as > I was finishing a continually interrupted lunch with only two drafts. I have > found that nearly every single message that I have sent here which has > noticeably provoked others or escalated a thread has been one I did not spend > much time on. Of course I think they are perfectly good when I send them. I > am > quite fond of what I come with to say and I *always* initially think > everything > I write is clever and calm. But if give myself enough time for that first > blush > of vanity to fade, I will usually drastically rewrite my draft. Most of the > time > I draft a message four or five times. A particularly long message either sits > overnight or through a commute. And for every four times I hit reply and > start > to write I probably only send three emails or else cut out 80% of the early > draft. Sometimes it only take three sentences and sometime three drafts > before > I realize there no helpful way for me to respond to something. But generally > speaking it is hard to hold on to a bad idea for very long without recognizing > it for what it is. I imagine everyone has different thresholds for this and I > can't imagine that anyone contributes to this list so that they might have > platform on which to be a jerk. But if there is anyone who sends on every > message they begin to write in less than five minutes please consider that > either you should apply for sainthood or that some percentage of your messages > are contributing a problem here. It would be really nice if the percentage of > provocative messages could be lowered and I intend to try do my part in that. > > Birgitte SB > > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
- Original Message > From: Ryan Lomonaco > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:37:17 PM > Subject: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of >requests) be published?) > > > > - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down > discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post > imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be > very helpful. > My last message to Will was not the best I could have sent. I rushed it off as I was finishing a continually interrupted lunch with only two drafts. I have found that nearly every single message that I have sent here which has noticeably provoked others or escalated a thread has been one I did not spend much time on. Of course I think they are perfectly good when I send them. I am quite fond of what I come with to say and I *always* initially think everything I write is clever and calm. But if give myself enough time for that first blush of vanity to fade, I will usually drastically rewrite my draft. Most of the time I draft a message four or five times. A particularly long message either sits overnight or through a commute. And for every four times I hit reply and start to write I probably only send three emails or else cut out 80% of the early draft. Sometimes it only take three sentences and sometime three drafts before I realize there no helpful way for me to respond to something. But generally speaking it is hard to hold on to a bad idea for very long without recognizing it for what it is. I imagine everyone has different thresholds for this and I can't imagine that anyone contributes to this list so that they might have platform on which to be a jerk. But if there is anyone who sends on every message they begin to write in less than five minutes please consider that either you should apply for sainthood or that some percentage of your messages are contributing a problem here. It would be really nice if the percentage of provocative messages could be lowered and I intend to try do my part in that. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down > discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post > imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be > very helpful. > I'm hardly a frequent poster here these days. I mostly just lurk on this list so I can keep somewhat abreast of things that are going on. However, as a longtime participant, this strikes me as a fairly useless idea. The thought has crossed my mind from time to time to jump in and say "hey guys, let's cool it with the ad hominems and get back to point A/B" (probably in a slightly more sarcastic manner, as is my style) But then I end up trashing the draft and saying to myself "Why bother? I'm just going to be shouted down or called a troll." I'm also pretty sure I'm speaking for a not-insignificant number of people who are subscribed but who rarely (if ever) post. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
Spinning off the moderation discussion to its own thread. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:45 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > The phrase you're looking for is, "An ounce of prevention is a pound of > cure." Either be an active part of this mailing list and moderate as > appropriate or give up the damn post already. The current system is clearly > and desperately ineffective. > I agree that we probably should have stepped up and put a halt to things earlier. For my part, I didn't check my e-mail for the last 36 hours or so; I read the first part of the discussion Sunday night, and checked back a few hours ago. That said, we have lives beyond moderating this list. I would not be opposed to adding another active moderator to help out, but a few months ago, when we actively sought additional moderators, I was seriously underwhelmed by the number of people who volunteered. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: > Yes I agree. It's pointless to actually allow people to speak freely, when > you can easily silence your critics by stuffing a sock in their mouth. We have a fundamental disagreement, then, as to the point of moderation. To me, moderation is not to stuff a sock in anyone's mouth, it's to improve the quality of discussion by adding a gate-keeper for those users who need one. While Will has made quality posts to the list, he's also made posts that have hurt discussion, both in the last few days and previously. Note that his comments in that thread led the discussion quickly off the topic of releasing server logs (which was an interesting discussion, in my opinion) into a few different meta-discussions, and the original subject was forgotten altogether. I'm happy to approve posts from Will that are on-topic, but until he shows the ability to avoid these random posts that devolve perfectly good discussions, I think moderation is the best option. I'll share with everyone the reasoning I gave Will as to why he is on moderation (portion in edited from my original message for the purpose of clarity): Will, > > I've placed you on moderation. Over the course of 48 hours you posted in > that discussion 16 times, moving from a few well-argued comments [1, 2] to > more argumentative comments [3] to bizarrely arguing that someone else is > not a "reliable source" for a mailing list discussion [4, 5, 6, 7] to > continuing to criticize what you perceived as a poor choice of words after > had already explained his meaning [8, 9, 10]. > > I do not believe you are trolling, but I believe you are assuming bad faith > in others, and you are missing the big picture. When you do so, you make > comments that are perceived by many as trolls, but that are also off-topic, > and often bordering on personal attacks against others. As such, I believe > moderation is appropriate. > > 1. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062702.html > 2. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062708.html > 3. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062711.html > 4. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062715.html > 5. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062721.html > 6. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062735.html > 7. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062739.html > 8. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062750.html > 9. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062752.html > 10. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062766.html > There are a few other things that I want to emphasize: - There were one or two other posters who exhibited similar behavior, to some extent baiting Will. That said, Will was by far the most prolific poster there, and was generally the one raising the heat of the discussion throughout. He's also had similar issues in the past. I did not feel moderation was appropriate in the cases of other users, but those users who were involved should be much more civil in the future, and those with a history of incivil or off-topic comments will be subject to moderation if the behavior continues. - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be very helpful. - Most importantly, I want to also emphasize that I'm speaking on behalf of myself only, and not on behalf of the other list moderators. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
