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 <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Rogol:
>
> "Alternatively,
> perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum."
>
> This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking about. I
> fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because they
> disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is either
> constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to exhibit in
> a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
> already.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> 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 are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> >
> > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > the current quota is too high.
> >
> > A review of the stats at
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > opinion heard.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> >
> > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> >
> > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> > via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> > then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> > globally banned users.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> > Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
> >
> > This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
> > quality of discourse.
> >
> > Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
> > substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
> > also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
> > provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
> >
> > However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
> > list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
> > patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
> > occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
> > that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list
> > readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
> > dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have
> > spent editing on the wikis.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
> > posts per month
> >
> > Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life
> > *and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of
> > their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on wikimedia-l
> > is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been used
> > for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the
> > Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > However it is more frequently abused, especially by some ‘critics’ who
> > have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally cause
> > stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with many
> > list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes their
> > criticism is so important that all other discussions about Wikimedia
> > should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their
> > satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway.
> >
> > Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their real
> > world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account.
> >
> > Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, or
> > does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is
> > exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask the
> > poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the end
> > of the month.  Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even
> > prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high
> > profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention to
> > their meta page.
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that
> > anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms without
> > repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and  transparency
> > generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely.
> > Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply with
> > less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the poster.
> > It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community once
> > their limit of five posts has been reached.
> >
> > If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would not
> > immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as
> > needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits, and
> > we would make a note on a meta page where the community can review
> > these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to dominate
> > the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list moderation
> > limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays out
> > in practise.
> >
> >
> > The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/
> > wikimedia-l-post-limits
> >
> > However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
> > express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
> > above (please identify them by number, to ease counting).  We will
> > count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
> > more refined final version back to this mailing list.
> >
> > The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
> > but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
> > than support.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to