Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

23 Aug 2017

      Again, I would like to second what Lodewijk wrote.
Lukas
2017-08-23 23:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
...
R,
if you know my contributions to this list, you also know that it is not
rare that I disagree with Foundation staff members. However, also I am very
uncomfortable with how you interact on this list, and the way you
communicate in general. This has only marginally to do with being on the
receiving end of the criticism. Especially the way you express your
criticisms, makes me cringe.
With you, I think a level of criticism is healthy. We do disagree strongly
on what is effective criticism, and what a healthy relationship looks like.
Without a healthy and safe climate, there is no way criticism can be
discussed in an effective way.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Lodewijk
I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best
interests
...
of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe
that
...
the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
own postings.
Roland
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
...
R,
if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list
could
...
in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think
his
...
...
words are why this conversation turned sour.
Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with
your
...
behavior in mind in particular.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
...
wrote:
...
Dan
Actually, being insulted and falsely accused of generalised
misconduct
...
...
by a
...
paid employee of the Foundation who has failed to read my post
correctly
...
is
...
what I call unconstructive behaviour.  But perhaps that is what you
expect
...
the donors money to be spent on.
Roald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester@gmail.com
...
...
wrote:
...
Hey Rogol:
"Alternatively,
perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
is
...
...
the
...
...
sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
forum."
...
...
...
...
This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking
about.
...
I
...
fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because
they
...
...
disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is
either
...
...
...
constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to
exhibit
...
...
in
...
a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
already.
Cheers.
Dan Rosenthal
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
...
...
Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <
jayvdb@gmail.com>
...
...
...
...
wrote:
...
Hi list members,
The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I,
your
...
...
...
humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere
some
...
...
...
...
posters (some of them frequent) create.
It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that
more
...
...
...
frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are
due
...
...
...
...
to the volume of messages rather than the content of the
messages.
...
...
...
...
...
We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing
the
...
...
...
...
...
volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate
more,
...
...
...
...
but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing
the
...
...
...
...
...
quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework
within
...
...
...
...
which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that
critics
...
...
...
...
...
are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth
that
...
...
...
...
will be given to critics should be established in advance,
reducing
...
...
...
...
...
need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to
the
...
...
...
...
volume will often achieve the same result.
Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically
never
...
...
...
...
been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers
still
...
...
...
...
...
clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This
suggests
...
...
...
...
the current quota is too high.
A review of the stats at
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show
very
...
...
few
...
...
...
people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for
people
...
...
...
...
...
exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes
they
...
...
are
...
...
...
repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop
repeating
...
...
...
...
themselves to allow some space for other list members also have
their
...
...
...
...
opinion heard.
Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who
have
...
...
...
been globally banned by the community according to the
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list
admins
...
...
...
...
...
would prefer that globally banned people communicate their
grievances
...
...
...
...
via established members of our community who can guide them,
rather
...
...
...
...
...
than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned
people
...
...
on
...
...
...
how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience,
and
...
...
...
...
then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The
role
...
...
...
...
of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only
patrolling
...
...
...
...
...
the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
globally banned users.
--
Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by
two
...
...
...
...
Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness
and
...
...
...
...
...
quality of discourse.
Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned
people
...
...
...
...
also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
However people who have been banned on a few projects also use
this
...
...
...
...
...
list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the
community
...
...
...
...
...
patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient
decorum
...
...
...
...
...
that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing
list
...
...
...
...
readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously
have
...
...
...
spent editing on the wikis.
Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five
(5)
...
...
...
...
...
posts per month
Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real
life
...
...
...
...
*and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of
their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on
wikimedia-l
...
...
...
...
is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been
used
...
...
...
...
for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the
Wikimedia movement.
However it is more frequently abused, especially by some
‘critics’
...
...
who
...
...
...
have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally
cause
...
...
...
stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with
many
...
...
...
...
list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes
their
...
...
...
criticism is so important that all other discussions about
Wikimedia
...
...
...
...
should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their
satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway.
Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their
real
...
...
...
...
world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account.
Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account,
or
...
...
...
...
does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is
exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask
the
...
...
...
...
poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the
end
...
...
...
...
of the month.  Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even
prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high
profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention
to
...
...
...
...
...
their meta page.

The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that
anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms
without
...
...
...
...
...
repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and
transparency
...
...
...
...
...
generally, but they need to use their five posts per month
wisely.
...
...
...
...
...
Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply
with
...
...
...
less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the
poster.
...
...
...
It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community
once
...
...
...
...
their limit of five posts has been reached.
If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would
not
...
...
...
...
...
immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as
needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits,
and
...
...
...
...
we would make a note on a meta page where the community can
review
...
...
...
...
...
these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to
dominate
...
...
...
...
the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list
moderation
...
...
...
...
limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays
out
...
...
...
...
in practise.
The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Requests_for_comment/
...
...
...
...
wikimedia-l-post-limits
However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
express explicit support or opposition to any of the four
proposals
...
...
...
...
...
above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We
will
...
...
...
...
...
count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post
a
...
...
...
...
...
more refined final version back to this mailing list.
The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four
proposals,
...
...
...
but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more
opposition
...
...
...
...
than support.
--
John Vandenberg

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
...
...
...
...
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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/wik
...
...
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
...
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

volume will often achieve the same result.

opinion heard.

spent editing on the wikis.