Again, I would like to second what Lodewijk wrote. Lukas
2017-08-23 23:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>: > 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 <domedonf...@gmail.com> > 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 <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> > > 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 < > > domedonf...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > Actually, being insulted and falsely accused of generalised > misconduct > > > by a > > > > paid employee of the Foundation who has failed to read my post > > correctly > > > is > > > > what I call unconstructive behaviour. But perhaps that is what you > > > expect > > > > the donors money to be spent on. > > > > > > > > Roald > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Rogol: > > > > > > > > > > "Alternatively, > > > > > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this > is > > > the > > > > > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public > forum." > > > > > > > > > > This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking > > > about. > > > > I > > > > > fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because > > > they > > > > > disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is > > either > > > > > constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to > > exhibit > > > > in > > > > > a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that > > > > > already. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > > > Dan Rosenthal > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" < > jay...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi list members, > > > > > > > > > > > > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, > > > your > > > > > > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent > > > > > > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere > > some > > > > > > posters (some of them frequent) create. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that > > > more > > > > > > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are > > due > > > > > > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the > messages. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing > the > > > > > > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate > > more, > > > > > > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing > the > > > > > > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last > > > > > > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework > > within > > > > > > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that > critics > > > > > > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth > > that > > > > > > will be given to critics should be established in advance, > reducing > > > > > > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to > > the > > > > > > volume will often achieve the same result. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15 > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically > > never > > > > > > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers > still > > > > > > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This > > suggests > > > > > > the current quota is too high. > > > > > > > > > > > > A review of the stats at > > > > > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show > very > > > few > > > > > > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for > people > > > > > > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list > > > > > > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes > they > > > are > > > > > > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop > > repeating > > > > > > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have > > their > > > > > > opinion heard. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted > > > > > > > > > > > > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this > > > > > > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who > > > have > > > > > > been globally banned by the community according to the > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat > > > > > > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy. The list > admins > > > > > > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their > > grievances > > > > > > via established members of our community who can guide them, > rather > > > > > > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned > people > > > on > > > > > > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, > > and > > > > > > then required to block them when they do not follow advice. The > > role > > > > > > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only > patrolling > > > > > > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping > > > > > > globally banned users. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by > > two > > > > > > Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month > > > > > > > > > > > > This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness > and > > > > > > quality of discourse. > > > > > > > > > > > > Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a > > > > > > substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned > > people > > > > > > also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought > > > > > > provoking views. This proposal hopes to allow that to continue. > > > > > > > > > > > > However people who have been banned on a few projects also use > this > > > > > > list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the > community > > > > > > patience on the wikis. Sometimes the last stand is brief, but > > > > > > occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient > decorum > > > > > > that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing > > list > > > > > > readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person > > > > > > dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously > > > have > > > > > > spent editing on the wikis. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five > (5) > > > > > > posts per month > > > > > > > > > > > > Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real > > life > > > > > > *and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of > > > > > > their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on > > wikimedia-l > > > > > > is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been > > used > > > > > > for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the > > > > > > Wikimedia movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > However it is more frequently abused, especially by some > ‘critics’ > > > who > > > > > > have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally > > > cause > > > > > > stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with > > many > > > > > > list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes > > > their > > > > > > criticism is so important that all other discussions about > > Wikimedia > > > > > > should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their > > > > > > satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their > > real > > > > > > world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, > > or > > > > > > does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is > > > > > > exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask > > the > > > > > > poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the > > end > > > > > > of the month. Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even > > > > > > prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high > > > > > > profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention > to > > > > > > their meta page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that > > > > > > anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms > without > > > > > > repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and > transparency > > > > > > generally, but they need to use their five posts per month > wisely. > > > > > > Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply > > > with > > > > > > less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the > > > poster. > > > > > > It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community > > once > > > > > > their limit of five posts has been reached. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would > not > > > > > > immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as > > > > > > needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits, > > and > > > > > > we would make a note on a meta page where the community can > review > > > > > > these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to > > dominate > > > > > > the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list > > moderation > > > > > > limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays > > out > > > > > > in practise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Requests_for_comment/ > > > > > > wikimedia-l-post-limits > > > > > > > > > > > > However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to > > > > > > express explicit support or opposition to any of the four > proposals > > > > > > above (please identify them by number, to ease counting). We > will > > > > > > count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post > a > > > > > > more refined final version back to this mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > > > The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four > > > proposals, > > > > > > but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more > > opposition > > > > > > than support. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > John Vandenberg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > > unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > > unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
