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
Proposal #1... the point is that with an effective average of 15 posts from some profile, someone still complains, IMHO it is fine, standard fluctuation. You should reduce drastically only if the majority of people complain, that is not the case so far. So if you want to give amessage you can reduce it but leave it higher... 20 maybe. I accept all posts and I don't think it is healthy if a minority, who often or maybe does not complain publicly, fix the agenda here. Life is though, deal with it. These processes in my experience always start with such good intention and turn out poorly. Everybody basically remains dissatisfied, and some people keep complaining (basically, it worked... so why they should stop?) I don't like the automatism of Proposal #2. You can limit the post of globally blocked people and specifically if some issue in that direction has emerged during the ban discussion. For example, there is no specific reason to refuse to post someone who was banned for copyviol. but if you want someone banned put your face on it, "I want him/her banned also there because... " Proposal #3 is also not fully reliable, you can be banned on some local project for strange dynamics, for example. I know a lot of people who said "someone blocked me on xx.wiki and I basically have no idea why". Just to cite the less controversial case, one sysop blocked the wrong account for a similar name (upon request) and the guy didn't even noticed because he was not active on that wiki. This was on a major one, in minor ones it get sometimes even worse because in small environment social dynamics and their output can fluctuate in a stronger way. With so many sysops active on different communities is also much easier to transfer an excessive dynamics from one project to a multilingual one, when few people speak that specific language. Alessandro
Il Mercoledì 23 Agosto 2017 6:04, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com ha scritto:
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
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list. When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
GerardM,
We would like to hear what people think could work, not only what doesn't work now. We all agree there is a issue here. We are trying to fix it. I would love to hear something constructive from you on this issue.
Shani.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list. When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as clear. And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase my goals for this discussion:
I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates healthy and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where people feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this mailing list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be, or are inconvenient.
I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when that is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is the repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would like to see reduced to a minimum.
Hopefully that makes sense :)
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list. When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
For 1 I like the higher soft limit at 30 15 feels to low, though maybe we could encourage a bit id discretion on the list admins behalf if someone is approaching the soft limit but not productively contributing to discussions or being repeative.
For 2 global ban should see a person removed form all activities of the community.
For 3 person person is banned by more than one community should be limited to topics not related to those communities or the ban
For 4 I think we need to put some trust in the list admins purely because the purpose for posting anonymously may require significant discussion and information, though it should be noted that such activity should restrict the use of their "public" account for that particular discussion
On 23 August 2017 at 19:35, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as clear. And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase my goals for this discussion:
I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates healthy and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where people feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this mailing list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be, or are inconvenient.
I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when that is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is the repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would like to see reduced to a minimum.
Hopefully that makes sense :)
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of
posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must
be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this
list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life identity to the list moderators. Perhaps the moderators will supplement that proposal with a description of the forms of identification they would require, and privacy policy that they would apply to protect such information.
Reed
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For 1 I like the higher soft limit at 30 15 feels to low, though maybe we could encourage a bit id discretion on the list admins behalf if someone is approaching the soft limit but not productively contributing to discussions or being repeative.
For 2 global ban should see a person removed form all activities of the community.
For 3 person person is banned by more than one community should be limited to topics not related to those communities or the ban
For 4 I think we need to put some trust in the list admins purely because the purpose for posting anonymously may require significant discussion and information, though it should be noted that such activity should restrict the use of their "public" account for that particular discussion
On 23 August 2017 at 19:35, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as
clear.
And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase
my
goals for this discussion:
I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates
healthy
and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where
people
feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this
mailing
list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be, or are inconvenient.
I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when
that
is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is the repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would like to see reduced to a minimum.
Hopefully that makes sense :)
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of
posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must
be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this
list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators
are
judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life identity to the list moderators. Perhaps the moderators will supplement that proposal with a description of the forms of identification they would require, and privacy policy that they would apply to protect such information.
Reed
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For 1 I like the higher soft limit at 30 15 feels to low, though maybe we could encourage a bit id discretion on the list admins behalf if someone
is
approaching the soft limit but not productively contributing to
discussions
or being repeative.
For 2 global ban should see a person removed form all activities of the community.
For 3 person person is banned by more than one community should be
limited
to topics not related to those communities or the ban
For 4 I think we need to put some trust in the list admins purely because the purpose for posting anonymously may require significant discussion
and
information, though it should be noted that such activity should restrict the use of their "public" account for that particular discussion
On 23 August 2017 at 19:35, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as
clear.
And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase
my
goals for this discussion:
I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates
healthy
and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where
people
feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this
mailing
list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be,
or
are inconvenient.
I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when
that
is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is
the
repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would
like
to see reduced to a minimum.
Hopefully that makes sense :)
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of
posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person
must
be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this
list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number
of
edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators
are
judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of
the
vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Joseph,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:40 PM, you wrote:
Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated.
If you believe that I have misrepresented some statement on this list, by all means quote me directly and explain your belief. A general statement of this nature coupled with a vague and unsubstantiated allegation of poor conduct is not a good example of the sort of constructive criticism that this proposal is intended to foster.
I guess, but do not know, that you believe my comment "One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life identity to the list moderators." does not accurately reflect the proposal "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". I do not accept that my comment misrepresents that proposal.
If this is indeed the subject of your somewhat unhelpful posting, then I reject your claim that this is a "misrepresentation" and suggest that you reconsider whether that was a posting you should have made.
Ruud
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I said that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To the extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask how that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason, you seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble over your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make about the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting, and to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content. 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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ 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
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I said that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To the extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask how that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason, you seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble over your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make about the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting, and to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content. 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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ 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
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason, you seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ 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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
Robert
If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a regular reader but a participant in discussions on the list, as recently as yesterday, then it may reasonably be presumed that they expect their employer to be aware of their posting.
Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say.
Roibéard
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason, you seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ 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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
"Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say."
That wasn't what Robert said, nor was there "bullying and harassment" coming from anyone other than you, Rogol. This kind of passive-aggressive straw-manning is an example of precisely why you have worn out your welcome here.
-Dan
Dan Rosenthal
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Robert
If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a regular reader but a participant in discussions on the list, as recently as yesterday, then it may reasonably be presumed that they expect their employer to be aware of their posting.
Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say.
Roibéard
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Periodic_survey_prot...
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason, you seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ 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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable, respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman# Periodic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you, Shani. My new favorite word is "automagically". And thank you all for working on new ideas for list moderation. /a
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable, respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman# Periodic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that
my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
I
reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/ 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
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see this as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide that I am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable, respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/wik i/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/wik i/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
Interesting and well-considered perspective, Rob. I appreciate your voice in this discussion.
Beyond this specific incident, which remains important, I agree, would any of the three policies proposed address this issue? Is there a policy amendment that you would like to see?
Thank you for your constructive participation and your clarity, /a
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see this as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide that I am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
which I
reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to
make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
your
> pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
> individual. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) > > Seddon > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/wik i/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/wik i/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
Dear all,
I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already requested comments on. We are close to reaching a consensus and will hopefully be able to release it soon, but we are in different time zones, so please bear with us. Our response will sum up our view regarding the points raised in the list re banning, as well as suggest a proper procedure.
We thank you all for your patience, and again, urge you to take a step back, not focus on individual cases and respond constructively to the 4 points that were raised in John's original mail.
Shani.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see this as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide that I am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
which I
reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to
make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
your
> pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
> individual. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) > > Seddon > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/wik i/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/wik i/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
Dear Wikimedia-l subscribers,
Throughout this discussion several requests have been made regarding banning of users from the list.
Since we do not have an official banning policy approved by the community, we have drafted our thoughts on the matter, as well as a proposed procedure for your consideration. We are adding it as a 5th point in our “Request for Comments” in our journey towards a healthier community.
You are welcome to support it, oppose it, explicitly ask that it be left to the admins’ decision (which is arguably status quo), or propose an entirely new option that we haven’t thought about.
Best,
The Wikimedia-l admin team.
------------------------------
The list is a tool for the community and it exists to serve the community. The ability to express dissenting opinions and to criticize is important in any movement, and is particularly cherished in our movement, which empowers individuals to an uncommon degree. But dissenting opinions should not mean a carte blanche to express it in offensive, threatening, or menacing ways. And critics have no immunity from criticism. Individuals’ behavior can reduce the usefulness of the list, either intentionally (trolling) or unintentionally. Our proposals seek to minimize individuals’ ability to reduce the usefulness of the list, without targeting specific individuals.
It is important to note that attempts to limit or ban individuals who express criticism *and* misbehave are sometimes interpreted as “silencing of criticism” and as an abuse of power. We cannot avoid these interpretations. Our duty as admins is to ensure that if a subscriber is banned, it would not be criticism alone that caused the ban; that the request to ban is not made by just one or few individuals, but rather a decision of the list community at large; and that the community decides based on clear criteria.
Some of the opposition votes on the list, Meta & Facebook thus far suggested that removing individuals would work better than adding rules. In general, and on many Wikipedias, it is considered unacceptable to approach a contributor's boss to complain about something that contributor said on-wiki. More than one member alluded to this norm in calling for a ban of a member based on his complaining about a WMF employee who is active on the list. However, it seems to us that specifically for Foundation (or chapters) employees, whose day jobs are in service of this community, it should be permissible to escalate a concern about an employee's conduct to their manager. This should of course be a last resort and executed with caution and discretion.
No doubt, some people may abuse this and file fake or trolling complaints. It should be up to the managers at WMF to apply their judgment (and seek guidance from their own managers, if necessary) in reviewing such complaints. We recognize that the risk of being complained about may deter some employees from engaging on the list, and that would be unfortunate. However, it would be absurd to make criticism of employee conduct the one topic the community is not allowed to discuss or complain about. Working for pay for this movement entails being open to community scrutiny and accepting the fact one may be held accountable by one's manager based on input from the community. Foundation staff also have the benefit of a reporting structure and a Human Resources department, both of which can support them in the face of the occasional unjustified or trolling complaint. It is up to all of us to express criticism fairly and calmly, to speak up for and not only against, and to prefer discussion to attack.
It is possible that the community would find an individual so disruptive and so draining, that the community moves to ban that individual. The list admins would execute such a ban if and when there is clear evidence of significant community support for such a move. An individual request to ban a subscriber of the list will not constitute such evidence. But if the community of this mailing list so chooses, it can organize a demonstration of its wishes and the list admins would act on it.
Finally, we would like to observe that the negative atmosphere on the list is greatly amplified by the relative shortage of constructive conversation. This is no doubt the result of years of frustration, but it is also a vicious cycle. Borrowing from Gandhi, we call upon everyone reading this with an interest in reviving the list as a useful discussion space to “be the conversation you would like to see in the list”. A flourishing of constructive, collegial conversation would do much to reduce the relative significance of problematic or unpleasant contributors.
Sincerely,
The Wikimedia-l admin team.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already requested comments on. We are close to reaching a consensus and will hopefully be able to release it soon, but we are in different time zones, so please bear with us. Our response will sum up our view regarding the points raised in the list re banning, as well as suggest a proper procedure.
We thank you all for your patience, and again, urge you to take a step back, not focus on individual cases and respond constructively to the 4 points that were raised in John's original mail.
Shani.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see this as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide that I am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision
has
been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that
it is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect
on
participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Joseph > > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
too.
I
said > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how > that personal information is going to be handled. For some
reason,
you
> seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
which I
> reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to
make
about > the handling of personal information, please do so. > > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise
to
the
> membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content. 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.
> > Reginald > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
> wrote: > > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
your
> > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
> > individual. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) > > > > Seddon > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/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/wik i/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/wik i/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
I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an important part of our communications ecosystem.
Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life" consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and encourage participation?
-Andrew
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see this as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide that I am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
which I
reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to
make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
your
> pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
> individual. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) > > Seddon > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/wik i/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/wik i/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
While I would (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is somewhat different.
Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as their paid roles go. Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an escalation path in case of difficulty in anthe public faxing role.
I am aware that the US has a culture far more prone to fire people first and ask questions later, than the UK, but I would hope that the WMF does not work like that.
On 25 Aug 2017 19:23, "Andrew Lih" andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an important part of our communications ecosystem.
Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life" consequences should be dealt with in the most severe manner. If we do not meatball:DefendEachOther, and deliver the basic safety needs of the list membership, how can we in good conscience keep this list running and encourage participation?
-Andrew
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me. It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue. It is of course in the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is
no
reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing. The content of the message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue. Some people may see
this
as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a slippery slope. Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might
not
be the case for the next victim. Will the poster in question decide
that I
am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a grant recipient. Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting their employment. (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including myself, in the past.) If participants on this list are allowed to engage in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that
my
chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on
this
list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision
has
been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that
it
is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those
of
"frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on
specific
individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run
its
course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri odic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect
on
participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Joseph > > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
too.
I
said > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life
identity
To
the > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable
to
ask
how > that personal information is going to be handled. For some
reason,
you
> seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
which I
> reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to
make
about > the handling of personal information, please do so. > > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise
to
the
> membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content. 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.
> > Reginald > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org>
> wrote: > > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask
your
> > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
> > individual. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) > > > > Seddon > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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/wik i/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/wik i/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
Hello Shani,
I lurk here, but don't really post. I am a regular poster at Wikipediocracy where I saw a discussion of this thread. I'll make one specific comment and one general comment.
When I read the RfC and I got to proposal #4, I thought that it might just as well have been written specifically with Rogol in mind. And I am pretty sure I was not the only person who thought so. Seeing this proposal, Rogol would definitely have felt that a bulls-eye was painted on their back, which might have contributed to the flare-up. My thoughts on the flare-up itself are available at Wikipediocracy for those who want to look; I don't wish to derail the thread here.
Now, I come to the broader issues. Obviously, this is a moderated list, and the moderators have discretion. I would like to make two points. They are not original or Earth-shaking, just relevant.
1. The Wikimedia "community", such as it exists, is very diverse: not only in makeup, but also in viewpoints. 2. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have a lot of influence on the world.
Therefore, one should err on the side of allowing more open discussion. Nobody here is forced to read or respond to Rogol's posts. I am sure people here know how to configure their email clients to filter messages.
Kingsindian (User: Kingsindian on en.wp)
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Shani Evenstein shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable, respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its course.
Best, Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman# Periodic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
that
my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joseph
I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
too. I
said
that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
To
the
extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
ask
how
that personal information is going to be handled. For some reason,
you
seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
quibble
over
your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
I
reject, of generalised misconduct. If you have some comment to make
about
the handling of personal information, please do so.
May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
the
membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
posting,
and
to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
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.
Reginald
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly
pseudonymous
individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Seddon _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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/ 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
It is a mistake to frame the use of a community resource in terms of a legal or justice system, or an individual's rights or punishment. This is an issue of the management of a community resource, and a community resource must be managed in a way that works for the community as a whole, not just the most frequent or longest participating posters. If community members are unwilling to participate because of the volume or vehemence of particular posters, that must be considered. The community should not belong to only the loudest voices.
These issues have a long-term effect on community health and transparency. If community members and Foundation staffers do not feel they can participate in a forum like this, they will find other channels to communicate, and those channels may not be as transparent and accessible as this one.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list. When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
Hi,
The four proposals seem fine to me and I support them!
Chees!
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
It is a mistake to frame the use of a community resource in terms of a legal or justice system, or an individual's rights or punishment. This is an issue of the management of a community resource, and a community resource must be managed in a way that works for the community as a whole, not just the most frequent or longest participating posters. If community members are unwilling to participate because of the volume or vehemence of particular posters, that must be considered. The community should not belong to only the loudest voices.
These issues have a long-term effect on community health and transparency. If community members and Foundation staffers do not feel they can participate in a forum like this, they will find other channels to communicate, and those channels may not be as transparent and accessible as this one.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of
posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must
be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this
list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are judge jury and executioner.
The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given. Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the vested interest of those at Meta. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, 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
The 15 limit is busted regularly by normal active posters. I disagree with that one.
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 22, 2017, at 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
Hey John,
Thanks for starting this discussion. I appreciate the efforts.
I don't have the impression that the exact height of the soft limit will solve any problems. It's fighting a sympton, rather than the cause of the issue. I'm fine either way, although I fear that having it at this level would discourage WMF employees to engage in active discussions when needed. As long as sensible exceptions are generously applied, I don't mind though.
Proposal 2,3 and 4 seem fine to me, but they come across as trying to find a very objective way to approach a subjective problem. They are fine approaches, but will never get to the core of the problem - they will cut down on some excesses though.
What I'm missing, is a proposal 5 that would have to tackle the more subjective question: how to handle contributors that are consistently unconstructive. I would personally appreciate a tighter control on civilty and constructiveness by the moderators, which could be covered by that. I don't know a good wording for that either, but would appreciate someone trying to make a proposal for that :)
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:44 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The 15 limit is busted regularly by normal active posters. I disagree with that one.
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 22, 2017, at 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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
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
On 23/08/2017 21:21, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
...
Enough already.
KTC
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or banning.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 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
Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on this list.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or banning.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 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/ 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
May I respectfully ask why Rogol is not on moderation already?
Regards,
Isaac.
On Aug 24, 2017 5:31 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on this list.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or banning.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 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/ 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
Rogol,
Good evening.
In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better, not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but it’s good as a general marker.
Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together, something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness Association https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_Association, building the next generation of content on women scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood, delivering used laptops to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine, most volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can dream.
I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose, but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation. Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out and offer a how-to-guide
I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I am asking you to build with us.
There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.
Good evening, /a
[1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on this list.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or banning.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 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/ 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
Anna
Thank you for your thoughtful response -- I regret that numerous other posters have not chosen to take the same approach. You are quite right that I believe the the Foundation and its projects need radical change -- revolution if you will -- to become successful. I do not dispute the goodness of the intentions that you list, but rather whether the current organisational structure, culture and ethos of the Foundation are able to deliver them. Over the past few years I have sadly come to the conclusion that they are not. To the extent that the work of the Foundation supports its mission I wish to support it -- to the extent that it undermines its mission then I wish to undermine it. Is that so surprising?
Rutherford
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rogol,
Good evening.
In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better, not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but it’s good as a general marker.
Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together, something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness Association https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_ Association, building the next generation of content on women scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood, delivering used laptops to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine, most volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can dream.
I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
,
but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation. Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out and offer a how-to-guide
I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I am asking you to build with us.
There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.
Good evening, /a
[1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net
wrote:
Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective
are
exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on this list.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation
or
banning.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 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:
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:
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/ 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
Getting back to the proposed rules, the list moderators have always had flexibility to use judgement. Creating extra bureaucracy is unlikely to be a healthy 'fix', I would much rather first see the mods take whatever action they feel is necessary to run a welcoming email list, and only start agreeing new rules if their actions are then thought contentious by the community.
The proposals on banned users seem draconian to my eyes, however if this goes ahead I propose we start a more flexible "alt-wikimedia-l" where there are fewer limitations, readership would be much smaller, and the blocked or naysayers can still have a voice, so long as they are not using it for personal attacks. Such an alternative channel would also help users to draft any critical thoughts before posting to the main list, something that would definitely help potential whistle-blowers ensure they have text that is sufficiently fair and robustly written.
A point worth noting is that anyone writing on behalf of a WMF blocked user risks being blocked by the WMF, based on my own experience.
Thanks, Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 23 Aug 2017 5:03 a.m., "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
Hi,
2017-08-23 7:03 GMT+03:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
Hi list members,
Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
The problem with this system is, IMO, not the quota, but the 'soft' part. There is obviously a thin line between not wanting to break the discussion and allowing it to be hijacked.
If a quota system is needed (as opposed to considering the moderators "benevolent dictators" that can use moderation whenever needed), may I suggest we keep the current quota and add an additional per-thread soft quota of 1 message/day and a hard quota of 2 messages per day? "Hard quota" would mean being put on moderation *immediately* after sending the 3rd message, for increasing periods, just like blocks on wiki. I think this would further limit the ability of target users to hijack threads, while discouraging other types of disrupting posting, such as bikeshedding or back-and-forth exchanges between a couple of users. The soft limit would also discourage one-liners and encourage to-the-point emails considering all the points expressed so far.
--
Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
Definitely agree.
--
Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
Agree in principle, but with the same note as on Proposal #4
--
Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5) posts per month
This is a risky proposal and I would not support it without further data to justify it. List maintainers should not become checkusers or do real-life police work.
Strainu
1. The list gets popular 2. The list attracts people 3. The people sends emails 4. Other people reads emails with opinions 5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions 6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions 7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails 8. Admins starts to limit people 9. Admins makes list unpopular
…
This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a dead forum.
At the cost of using up one of my limited number of permitted posts for the month, I agree with this. Cheers, peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: Saturday, 26 August 2017 6:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits
1. The list gets popular 2. The list attracts people 3. The people sends emails 4. Other people reads emails with opinions 5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions 6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions 7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails 8. Admins starts to limit people 9. Admins makes list unpopular
…
This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a dead forum. _______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, 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.
...
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
The RFC has yet to be closed, after being open for over five months. Could someone close it or reject it?
In practical reality, the hardline talk about posting limits, seems to have resulted in significantly reduced posts to this list. The statistics are somewhat worrying, casting doubt on the long term future of this list staying active or interesting.
The standard statistics [1] show participation is at a record low. My sense of the list is that real content discussions are now minimal, with announcements and thankspam outnumbering thoughtful observations or critiques.
Picking out one trend to illustrate, here are comparative numbers for last month against other Januarys in the last few years, which is a simple way to compensate for seasonal variation: 2018, 139 posts 2017, 370 posts 2016, 989 posts 2015, 445 posts 2014, 571 posts
Rather than increasing negative bureaucracy on the list to stop people posting too much, perhaps the list moderators have some views on how to positively encourage people to engage with the community here?
Links 1. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
Thanks, Fae
It would be good to conclusively and definitively close the RFC, but I'm not sure I agree with the notion that less posts is a *bad* thing. In some months we've had quite a lot of traffic on this list, a lot of which has been very low quality and only of interest to a small number of people. I do not see that the utility of this list can be measured accurately by looking solely at volume metrics like the number of posts or the size of the posts.
Plus, I would also add that a look at the history of the list shows that posting amounts vary widely anyway. There were more than twice as many posts in October 2017 as compared to October 2016, for instance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 February 2018 at 22:01, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, 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.
...
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
The RFC has yet to be closed, after being open for over five months. Could someone close it or reject it?
In practical reality, the hardline talk about posting limits, seems to have resulted in significantly reduced posts to this list. The statistics are somewhat worrying, casting doubt on the long term future of this list staying active or interesting.
The standard statistics [1] show participation is at a record low. My sense of the list is that real content discussions are now minimal, with announcements and thankspam outnumbering thoughtful observations or critiques.
Picking out one trend to illustrate, here are comparative numbers for last month against other Januarys in the last few years, which is a simple way to compensate for seasonal variation: 2018, 139 posts 2017, 370 posts 2016, 989 posts 2015, 445 posts 2014, 571 posts
Rather than increasing negative bureaucracy on the list to stop people posting too much, perhaps the list moderators have some views on how to positively encourage people to engage with the community here?
Links
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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@lists.wikimedia.org