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

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

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

Katie Chan
On 23/08/2017 21:21, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> ...
Enough already.

KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
Lodewijk

I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best interests
of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe that
the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
own postings.

Roland

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> R,
>
> if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list could
> in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think his
> words are why this conversation turned sour.
>
> Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
> participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with your
> behavior in mind in particular.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[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>
>
_______________________________________________
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 you know my contributions to this list, you also know that it is not
rare that I disagree with Foundation staff members. However, also I am very
uncomfortable with how you interact on this list, and the way you
communicate in general. This has only marginally to do with being on the
receiving end of the criticism. Especially the way you express your
criticisms, makes me cringe.

With you, I think a level of criticism is healthy. We do disagree strongly
on what is effective criticism, and what a healthy relationship looks like.
Without a healthy and safe climate, there is no way criticism can be
discussed in an effective way.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Lodewijk
>
> I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
> consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
> significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
> Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
> suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
> that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
> being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best interests
> of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe that
> the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
> own postings.
>
> Roland
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > R,
> >
> > if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list
> could
> > in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think his
> > words are why this conversation turned sour.
> >
> > Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
> > participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with
> your
> > behavior in mind in particular.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> [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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Again, I would like to second what Lodewijk wrote.

Lukas

2017-08-23 23:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <[hidden email]>:

> R,
>
> if you know my contributions to this list, you also know that it is not
> rare that I disagree with Foundation staff members. However, also I am very
> uncomfortable with how you interact on this list, and the way you
> communicate in general. This has only marginally to do with being on the
> receiving end of the criticism. Especially the way you express your
> criticisms, makes me cringe.
>
> With you, I think a level of criticism is healthy. We do disagree strongly
> on what is effective criticism, and what a healthy relationship looks like.
> Without a healthy and safe climate, there is no way criticism can be
> discussed in an effective way.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
> > consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
> > significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
> > Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
> > suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
> > that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
> > being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best
> interests
> > of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe
> that
> > the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
> > own postings.
> >
> > Roland
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > R,
> > >
> > > if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list
> > could
> > > in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think
> his
> > > words are why this conversation turned sour.
> > >
> > > Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
> > > participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with
> > your
> > > behavior in mind in particular.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > [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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
banning.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[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

Craig Franklin
Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are
exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
this list.

Cheers,
Craig

On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
> Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
> banning.
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[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>
>
_______________________________________________
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

Isaac Olatunde
May I respectfully ask why Rogol is not on moderation already?

Regards,

Isaac.

On Aug 24, 2017 5:31 AM, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
> you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
> someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are
> exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
> expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
> this list.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
> > Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
> > banning.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
 Rogol,

Good evening.

In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better,
not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to
decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique
and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better
outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but
it’s good as a general marker.

Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by
some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really
do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together,
something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness
Association <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_Association>,
building the next generation of content on women scientists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood>, delivering used laptops
to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine>, most
volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I
can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can
dream.

I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose>,
but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it
clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation.
Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out
and offer a how-to-guide

I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has
considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's
plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward
the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for
future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I
am asking you to build with us.

There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point
of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive
your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.

Good evening,
/a

[1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
> you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
> someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are
> exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
> expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
> this list.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
> > Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
> > banning.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Anna

Thank you for your thoughtful response -- I regret that numerous other
posters have not chosen to take the same approach.  You are quite right
that I believe the the Foundation and its projects need radical change --
revolution if you will -- to become successful.  I do not dispute the
goodness of the intentions that you list, but rather whether the current
organisational structure, culture and ethos of the Foundation are able to
deliver them.  Over the past few years I have sadly come to the conclusion
that they are not.  To the extent that the work of the Foundation supports
its mission I wish to support it -- to the extent that it undermines its
mission then I wish to undermine it.  Is that so surprising?

Rutherford

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>  Rogol,
>
> Good evening.
>
> In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better,
> not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to
> decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique
> and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better
> outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but
> it’s good as a general marker.
>
> Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by
> some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really
> do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together,
> something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness
> Association <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Cuteness_
> Association>,
> building the next generation of content on women scientists
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood>, delivering used laptops
> to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
> information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine>, most
> volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I
> can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can
> dream.
>
> I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
> >,
> but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it
> clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation.
> Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out
> and offer a how-to-guide
>
> I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has
> considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's
> plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward
> the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for
> future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I
> am asking you to build with us.
>
> There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point
> of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive
> your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.
>
> Good evening,
> /a
>
> [1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> > substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
> > you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
> > someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective
> are
> > exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
> > expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
> > this list.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
> > > Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation
> or
> > > banning.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Fæ
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Getting back to the proposed rules, the list moderators have always had
flexibility to use judgement. Creating extra bureaucracy is unlikely to be
a healthy 'fix', I would much rather first see the mods take whatever
action they feel is necessary to run a welcoming email list, and only start
agreeing new rules if their actions are then thought contentious by the
community.

The proposals on banned users seem draconian to my eyes, however if this
goes ahead I propose we start a more flexible "alt-wikimedia-l" where there
are fewer limitations, readership would be much smaller, and the blocked or
naysayers can still have a voice, so long as they are not using it for
personal attacks. Such an alternative channel would also help users to
draft any critical thoughts before posting to the main list, something that
would definitely help potential whistle-blowers ensure they have text that
is sufficiently fair and robustly written.

A point worth noting is that anyone writing on behalf of a WMF blocked user
risks being blocked by the WMF, based on my own experience.

Thanks,
Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
http://telegram.me/wmlgbt

On 23 Aug 2017 5:03 a.m., "John Mark Vandenberg" <[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

Joseph Seddon-6
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.

And I stand by them.

Seddon

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Joseph
>
> I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I said
> that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To the
> extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask how
> that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason, you
> seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble over
> your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make about
> the handling of personal information, please do so.
>
> May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the
> membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting, and
> to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.  Alternatively,
> perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
>
> Reginald
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <[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>
>



--
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

Chris Koerner-2
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hey Fæ,
Considering your proposal, on one hand I'm not sure using Wikimedia
resources to create Yet Another Forum for discussion would provide any
benefit to the movement. We're fractured enough as it is. Especially
given that this proposal is to make a more inviting atmosphere for
_all_ participants, not create a smaller (frequency, participation)
space to shunt folks into.

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

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

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

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


Yours,
Chris K.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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 Joseph Seddon-6
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
why they will not do so.

I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my
> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>
> And I stand by them.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Joseph
> >
> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
> said
> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
> the
> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
> how
> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason, you
> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
> over
> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> about
> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >
> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the
> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
> and
> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> Alternatively,
> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> >
> > Reginald
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <[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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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
Robert

If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their
employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a
signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and
position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a
regular reader but a participant in discussions on the list, as recently as
yesterday, then it may reasonably be presumed that they expect their
employer to be aware of their posting.

Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting
bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest
something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from
the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say.

Roibéard

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the
> list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
> why they will not do so.
>
> I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting
> your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
> my
> > choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >
> > And I stand by them.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph
> > >
> > > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
> > said
> > > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
> > the
> > > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
> > how
> > > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason, you
> > > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
> > over
> > > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> > > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > about
> > > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >
> > > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the
> > > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
> > and
> > > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > Alternatively,
> > > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> the
> > > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > >
> > > Reginald
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <[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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
"Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting
bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest
something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from
the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say."

That wasn't what Robert said, nor was there "bullying and harassment"
coming from anyone other than you, Rogol. This kind of passive-aggressive
straw-manning is an example of precisely why you have worn out your welcome
here.

-Dan





Dan Rosenthal

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Robert
>
> If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their
> employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a
> signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and
> position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a
> regular reader but a participant in discussions on the list, as recently as
> yesterday, then it may reasonably be presumed that they expect their
> employer to be aware of their posting.
>
> Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting
> bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest
> something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from
> the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say.
>
> Roibéard
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> the
> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
> > why they will not do so.
> >
> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> contacting
> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
> > my
> > > choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >
> > > And I stand by them.
> > >
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joseph
> > > >
> > > > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> I
> > > said
> > > > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> To
> > > the
> > > > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> ask
> > > how
> > > > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> you
> > > > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> quibble
> > > over
> > > > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> > > > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > > about
> > > > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > > >
> > > > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> the
> > > > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> posting,
> > > and
> > > > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > > Alternatively,
> > > > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > > > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > > >
> > > > Reginald
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> [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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
length less than a year ago?

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Periodic_survey_prototype

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the
> list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
> why they will not do so.
>
> I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting
> your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my
>> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>>
>> And I stand by them.
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Joseph
>> >
>> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
>> said
>> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
>> the
>> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
>> how
>> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason, you
>> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
>> over
>> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
>> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
>> about
>> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
>> >
>> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the
>> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
>> and
>> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
>> Alternatively,
>> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
>> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
>> >
>> > Reginald
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <[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>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Shani Evenstein
Dear Wikimedia-l,

Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
"frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.

In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
course.

Best,
Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> length less than a year ago?
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> Periodic_survey_prototype
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> the
> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
> > why they will not do so.
> >
> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> contacting
> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that
> my
> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >>
> >> And I stand by them.
> >>
> >> Seddon
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Joseph
> >> >
> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
> >> said
> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
> >> the
> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
> >> how
> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> you
> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
> >> over
> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> >> about
> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >> >
> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> the
> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
> >> and
> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> >> Alternatively,
> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> the
> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> >> >
> >> > Reginald
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <[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>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Anna Stillwell
Thank you, Shani. My new favorite word is "automagically". And thank you
all for working on new ideas for list moderation.
/a

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> > length less than a year ago?
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#
> > Periodic_survey_prototype
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
> > the
> > > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> > > why they will not do so.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> > > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> > contacting
> > > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> that
> > my
> > >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> > >>
> > >> And I stand by them.
> > >>
> > >> Seddon
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Joseph
> > >> >
> > >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so
> too.  I
> > >> said
> > >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> To
> > >> the
> > >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> ask
> > >> how
> > >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> > you
> > >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> quibble
> > >> over
> > >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which
> I
> > >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> > >> about
> > >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> > the
> > >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> posting,
> > >> and
> > >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> > >> Alternatively,
> > >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> > >> >
> > >> > Reginald
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> [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>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 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>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Shani Evenstein
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
uncrossable line here.

Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?

Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
list due to the risk to their livelihoods.


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
>> length less than a year ago?
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
>> odic_survey_prototype
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
>> the
>> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
>> > why they will not do so.
>> >
>> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
>> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
>> contacting
>> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
>> that my
>> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>> >>
>> >> And I stand by them.
>> >>
>> >> Seddon
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Joseph
>> >> >
>> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
>> I
>> >> said
>> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
>> To
>> >> the
>> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
>> ask
>> >> how
>> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
>> you
>> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
>> quibble
>> >> over
>> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
>> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
>> >> about
>> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
>> >> >
>> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
>> the
>> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
>> posting,
>> >> and
>> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
>> >> Alternatively,
>> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
>> the
>> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
>> >> >
>> >> > Reginald
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
>> [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/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
>> bscribe>
>> >> > >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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/ma
>> ilman/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>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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/wik
>> i/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

Anna Stillwell
Interesting and well-considered perspective, Rob. I appreciate your voice
in this discussion.

Beyond this specific incident, which remains important, I agree, would any
of the three policies proposed address this issue? Is there a policy
amendment that you would like to see?

Thank you for your constructive participation and your clarity,
/a

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
> disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
> uncrossable line here.
>
> Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
> responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
> It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
> the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
> claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
> reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
> message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
> as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
> slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
> be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
> am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?
>
> Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
> government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
> grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
> that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
> their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
> administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
> myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
> in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
> chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
> list due to the risk to their livelihoods.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia-l,
> >
> > Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> > been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are
> reasonable,
> > respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it
> is
> > important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> > "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> > next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
> >
> > In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> > individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay
> on
> > problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and
> objectively
> > participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for
> posting
> > to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically
> fix
> > all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> > reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> > intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> > course.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
> >> length less than a year ago?
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
> >> odic_survey_prototype
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned
> from
> >> the
> >> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators
> regarding
> >> > why they will not do so.
> >> >
> >> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
> >> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
> >> contacting
> >> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
> >> that my
> >> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I stand by them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seddon
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Joseph
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
> >> I
> >> >> said
> >> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
> >> To
> >> >> the
> >> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
> >> ask
> >> >> how
> >> >> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason,
> >> you
> >> >> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a
> >> quibble
> >> >> over
> >> >> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation,
> which I
> >> >> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to
> make
> >> >> about
> >> >> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to
> >> the
> >> >> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your
> >> posting,
> >> >> and
> >> >> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> >> >> Alternatively,
> >> >> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this
> is
> >> the
> >> >> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public
> forum.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reginald
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon <
> >> [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/ma
> >> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsu
> >> bscribe>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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/ma
> >> ilman/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>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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/wik
> >> i/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>
123