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 Discourse as a mailing list
alternative (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discourse )
https://discourse-mediawiki.wmflabs.org/ for trialing it as a developer
support channel (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Discourse )
The latter has more movement these days (it's seen as a more pressing
problem to solve, also it's a semi-official WMF project) but in any case
the technology side of introducing Discourse is well covered; it's the
social side (finding a small or new mailing list, convince them to move to
Discourse, collect feedback) that needs work.
___
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, 


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
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  wrote:

> 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 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
> --
> fae...@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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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 some
purposes and we need to make decisions about how those purposes will be
served if the list is removed. On a personal and professional level, this
list has helped me:

* find a social side to Wikimedia: When I joined WMF as a staff member four
years ago, I pretty much knew no one. Keeping an eye on this list has
helped me over the years to find a base beyond WMF staff that I know and I
can have volunteer, staff, or personal relations with. This is invaluable.
:)

* learn about Wikimedia's governance: again, for a newcomer like myself, it
was invaluable to be exposed to many different voices, opinions,
backgrounds, perspectives, etc. in one place.

* learn about the different projects going on around the Movement.

* find people who are interested to work with me in the research projects I
do at staff time.

This being said, I'm all for rethinking how we as a Movement communicate,
for what purpose, and what kind of technologies can help us do that more
efficiently and effectively.

Leila



>
> 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
> offering
> > it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
> > usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that
> it
> > would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
> > insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have
> experienced
> > in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I
> am
> > concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
> > for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
> > project.
> >
> > I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
> > the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
> > have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust
> our
> > communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.
> >
> > I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
> > the RfC is closed.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> > [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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 offering
> it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor, which in addition to potential
> usability improvements from Discourse would have the added benefit that it
> would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
> insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have experienced
> in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I am
> concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
> for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
> project.
>
> I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
> the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
> have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust our
> communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.
>
> I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
> the RfC is closed.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), 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, 


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 the added benefit that it
would not be hosted on a WMF server and therefore would be somewhat
insulated from governance controversies at WMF such as we have experienced
in the past and such as the one recently experienced by WMFR. However, I am
concerned that I would be unable to provide sufficient legal protections
for the privacy of the list and its members, so I have not initiated this
project.

I think that a good first order of business would be for someone to close
the existing RfC on Meta. After that RfC is closed I think that we should
have further discussions about how we might like to continue to adjust our
communications on Wikimedia-l or its successor.

I am currently limiting myself to approximately 15 posts per month until
the RfC is closed.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_(software)
___
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, 


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 of of “hey I acknowledge
you exist, saw your message, but have nothing to add” messages are
helpful for remaining connected to colleagues who are physically
distant, but frequently encountered (and sometimes sadly not) in
online spaces. It’s part of the reason I find the Thanks extension
helpful on-wiki. So that is to say, this is a hearty +1 to the current
state of things. In my opinion, I'm fine. We're fine.
Maybe a mailling list equivalent could be developed, for example 
indicating a link to thank the person at the end of the email, which 
both email this person and add some data for the mailling-list statitics.


Cheers
___
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, 


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 of community health
*You feel the content of the list is low on substantive conversation
*You would like feedback on these ideas.

Correlation does not equal causation, so I think it’s not as clear (or
black and white) as I interpret your writing on why we've seen less
participation. Nor do I find any lack of quality in the conversations
that do happen here.

Of course, who's to say that those past years and corresponding
numbers are indicative of a healthy community? :) I remember this
mailing list to have a great number more posts in early 2016, but many
remember that period of time as not such a healthy time for the
movement. If the goal is more posts at the cost of more drama - I'll
take a hard pass.

Do you feel that the mailing list content is less healthy or perhaps
just less noisy? Noisy in the sense of distractions. You mention
criticism and thoughtful conversation. Is it possible that is
happening in other more friendly (technologically accessible and
civil) venues? Perhaps one where familiar usernames are not given such
court to create more distraction?

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 of of “hey I acknowledge
you exist, saw your message, but have nothing to add” messages are
helpful for remaining connected to colleagues who are physically
distant, but frequently encountered (and sometimes sadly not) in
online spaces. It’s part of the reason I find the Thanks extension
helpful on-wiki. So that is to say, this is a hearty +1 to the current
state of things. In my opinion, I'm fine. We're fine.

I hope this is a somewhat thoughtful observation and not too spammy. :)

Thanks,
Chris K.

___
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, 


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 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
-- 
fae...@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, 


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 make a list attracting and interesting. this means
i would find guidelines on how to write good emails, how often to write,
how much time it takes to write one, how to communicate effectively would
be something i'd love to see. why can we not revert to a positive way of
dealing with mails, picking out real life examples, dissect them and make
the community grow around them? how to handle new members vs old members?
when to repeat what without leaving the old ones annoyed, and the new ones
clueless?

instead of having a childish discussion about posting limits to be honest
...

rupert

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:45 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> 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
>
> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
>
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 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,
> > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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

2017-08-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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-boun...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> 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 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,
> 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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 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,

___
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, 


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 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, 


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
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

___
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, 


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 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 
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 

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 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 
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  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
> >  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 
> > > 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 <
> > domedonf...@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 

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
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"  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  >
> 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 
> > 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 
> > 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
> > >>  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 

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 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 
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 
> 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 
> 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
> >>  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  >
> >> > 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 <
> >> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> 

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 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 
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 
> 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 
> 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
> >>  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  >
> >> > 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 

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 constructive participation and your clarity,
/a

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Robert Fernandez 
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 
> 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 
> 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
> >>  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  >
> >> > 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 <
> >> domedonf...@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 

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 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 
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  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
>>  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 
>> > 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 <
>> domedonf...@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, 

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 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  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
> >  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 
> > > 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 <
> > domedonf...@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 <
> jsed...@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,
> > >> > >  > 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/

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, 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  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
>  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 
> > 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 <
> domedonf...@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  >
> >> > 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,
> >> > >  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
> ,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> 

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 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 
> 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 
>> 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 
>> > 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,
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > 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,
>> > 
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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,
>> 
>>
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 


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 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 
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 
> 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 
> > 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 <
> > domedonf...@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 <
> jsed...@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,
> > > > >  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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > > *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> > > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

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 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 
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 
> 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 <
> domedonf...@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 
> > > 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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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 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 
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 
> 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 
> > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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_ participants, not create a smaller (frequency, participation)
space to shunt folks into.

On the other hand if a subset of folks need a release valve, and would
use a more appropriate place to discuss than this (IMHO, the
main/primary movement list), then I'm all for that.

A small aside, while "alt" has a long tradition in meaning
"alternative" like alternative rock, [0] my personal history (as a BBS
user) has established its meaning as "Anarchists, Lunatics, and
Terrorists’.” (that's an old BBS joke, by the way). [1]

Less of a joke is the obvious contemporary meaning of the alt- prefix,
which, ugh, I don't think anyone wants to have folks inadvertently
associate our projects with. [2] Naming stuff is hard, but I would
avoid that prefix at the moment. Heck, I have enough difficulty
explaining to friends and family that I don't work on that other leaky
"wiki" project. :p

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_rock
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.*_hierarchy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


Yours,
Chris K.

___
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, 


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 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 
> 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 


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
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"  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 

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
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 
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  Association>,
> building the next generation of content on women scientists
> , delivering used laptops
> to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
> information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
> , 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
>  >,
> 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  >
> 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 
> > 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 
> > > 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 

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 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 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 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 

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 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 ,
building the next generation of content on women scientists
, delivering used laptops
to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
, 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
,
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 
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 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 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 

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
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  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 
> 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 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 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 

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 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  wrote:
>
> > 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 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 

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
> 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 
> 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 
> > 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 <
> > domedonf...@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  >
> > > > 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 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <
> jay...@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 

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
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 
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 
> 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 <
> domedonf...@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 
> > > 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 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 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 

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 conversation are discussing these guidelines with your
behavior in mind in particular.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
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 
> 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 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 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 

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 9:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal  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  wrote:
>
> > 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 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 

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 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  wrote:

> 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 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' 

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 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 

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 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 
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,
> 
>
___
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, 


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 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, 


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 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


>
___
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, 


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 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  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 
> 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.meijs...@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 
> > > 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

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.   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.meijs...@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 
> 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
> > > 

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 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 
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  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 

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.

Reed

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Gnangarra  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  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.meijs...@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 
> > 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.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > 

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 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  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.meijs...@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 
> 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
> > > 

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 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 
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  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 

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 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  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
> 

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 / member of the Supervisory Board

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
http://wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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, 


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
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 
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 
> 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 

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 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’ 

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 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  
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