On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
> it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor
There are already two experimental Discourse instances:
https://discourse.wmflabs.org/ for trialing
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
[writing at personal capacity.]
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Joseph Seddon
> The question is, does it need a successor?
Whether mailing list is a good option for the kind of discussions we have
in wikimedia-l is not clear to me, however, the list is serving
The question is, does it need a successor?
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Pine W wrote:
> For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
> Wikimedia-l to Discourse. 
> I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and
For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving
Wikimedia-l to Discourse. 
I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
usability improvements from Discourse would have
Le 09/02/2018 à 22:57, Chris Koerner a écrit :
As for the usefulness of this mailing list I can only speak for
myself. I work remotely. I have conditioned into me from previous
experiences not to send frivolous single-sentence replies. However in
my experience within the movement, these sort
Let me make sure I understand.
*You believe suggesting posting limits resulted in less posts because
people were afraid of the post limits
*This makes you feel doubt about the health of the mailing list
*The count of posts is low year-over-year for the last few years
*This is indicative
On 23 August 2017 at 05:03, John Mark Vandenberg 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
i do agree with john erling blad, peter southwood and others. this list is
15 years old, and has less traffic nowadays. see
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html. years ago it had
between 400 and 600 mails a month, nowadays it is approaching half of it,
imo a list admin should
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
I've seen this in other forums, but note that correlation isn't causality.
Still trying to throttle a forum because someone think it has to much
postings (it is to popular) is dangerous. It can be to quiet… ;)
But hey, I have only a "45" on the popularity rank!  I have a long way
to go! =D
Your thesis implies admin actions made this list unpopular. I think it is
plain to see this *wasn't* the case with this list. Indeed, some opinions
voiced in this thread indicate people want *more* admin action.
On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" wrote:
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
2017-08-23 7:03 GMT+03:00 John Mark Vandenberg :
> 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
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
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
While I would (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual
contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is
Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as
their paid roles go. Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an
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
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
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
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
Thank you, Shani. My new favorite word is "automagically". And thank you
all for working on new ideas for list moderation.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Shani Evenstein
> Dear Wikimedia-l,
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no
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,
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
length less than a year ago?
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> Since Rogol has followed
"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."
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
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
Considering your proposal, on one hand I'm not sure using Wikimedia
resources to create Yet Another Forum for discussion would provide any
benefit to the movement. We're fractured enough as it is. Especially
given that this proposal is to make a more inviting atmosphere for
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.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
> I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that
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
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
May I respectfully ask why Rogol is not on moderation already?
On Aug 24, 2017 5:31 AM, "Craig Franklin" wrote:
> Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I
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
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
Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Hey Rogol:
> perhaps you would prefer me to
Again, I would like to second what Lodewijk wrote.
2017-08-23 23:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
> 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
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
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
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.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at
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
Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" 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
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
Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your
pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
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
Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
> One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life
> identity to the list moderators. Perhaps the moderators will supplement
The four proposals seem fine to me and I support them!
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Fernandez
> 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.
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,
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
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
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
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
I would like to join Lodewijk both in thanking the list administrators for
opening and framing this discussion, and in thinking out lout that maybe "
constructiveness" should somehow be made a rule for posting on this list.
Dr. Lukas Mezger
Mitglied des Präsidiums /
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
The 15 limit is busted regularly by normal active posters. I disagree with
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 22, 2017, at 9:03 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi list members,
> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani
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
Mail list logo