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

2018-02-18 Thread Gergo Tisza
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

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

2018-02-18 Thread Craig Franklin
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

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

2018-02-18 Thread Leila Zia
[writing at personal capacity.] On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Joseph Seddon wrote: > 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

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

2018-02-18 Thread Joseph Seddon
The question is, does it need a successor? Seddon 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. [0] > > I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and

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

2018-02-18 Thread Pine W
For some time there have been periodic mentions of the idea of moving Wikimedia-l to Discourse. [0] 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

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

2018-02-12 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz
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

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

2018-02-09 Thread Chris Koerner
Hey Fae, 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

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

2018-02-07 Thread
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

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

2017-08-28 Thread rupert THURNER
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

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

2017-08-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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

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

2017-08-26 Thread John Erling Blad
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! [1] I have a long way to go! =D

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

2017-08-26 Thread Asaf Bartov
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. A. On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" wrote: 1. The

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

2017-08-26 Thread John Erling Blad
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

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

2017-08-26 Thread Strainu
Hi, 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

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

2017-08-26 Thread Shani Evenstein
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Kingsindian WP
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Richard Farmbrough
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Andrew Lih
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Shani Evenstein
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Anna Stillwell
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Fernandez
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

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

2017-08-25 Thread Anna Stillwell
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 wrote: > Dear Wikimedia-l, > > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no

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

2017-08-25 Thread Shani Evenstein
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,

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

2017-08-24 Thread James Salsman
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 wrote: > Since Rogol has followed

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

2017-08-24 Thread Dan Rosenthal
"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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Robert Fernandez
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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Chris Koerner
Hey Fæ, 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 _all_

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

2017-08-24 Thread Joseph Seddon
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 wrote: > Joseph > > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that

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

2017-08-24 Thread
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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Isaac Olatunde
May I respectfully ask why Rogol is not on moderation already? Regards, Isaac. 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

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

2017-08-24 Thread Anna Stillwell
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Craig Franklin
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Robert Fernandez
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 wrote: > Hey Rogol: > > "Alternatively, > perhaps you would prefer me to

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lukas Mezger
Again, I would like to second what Lodewijk wrote. Lukas 2017-08-23 23:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk : > 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 >

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Dan Rosenthal
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Samuel Klein
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Joseph Seddon
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Joseph Seddon
Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated. Seddon On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life > identity to the list moderators. Perhaps the moderators will supplement > that

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

2017-08-23 Thread Eduardo Testart
Hi, The four proposals seem fine to me and I support them! Chees! On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Fernandez 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.

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

2017-08-23 Thread 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. 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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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.

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

2017-08-23 Thread Gnangarra
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lukas Mezger
Hi, 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. Kind regards, Lukas -- Dr. Lukas Mezger Mitglied des Präsidiums /

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

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
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

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

2017-08-23 Thread George Herbert
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 wrote: > > Hi list members, > > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani

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

2017-08-22 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
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