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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_Association>, building the next generation of content on women scientists <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood>, delivering used laptops to people who create free knowledge , or making verifiable medical information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine>, 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose>, 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  Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> 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 <wikigamal...@gmail.com> > 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 <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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>