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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

John Mark Vandenberg
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Lukas Mezger-2
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Shani Evenstein
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
GerardM,

We would like to hear what people think could work, not only what doesn't
work now.
We all agree there is a issue here. We are trying to fix it.
I would love to hear something constructive from you on this issue.

Shani.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Joseph Seddon-6
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated.

Seddon

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Joseph Seddon-6
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]>
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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

metasj
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.

On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
>
> On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> >
> > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> > >
> > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123