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 <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/wik > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-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>
