Requests for comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus to implement. Closed without prejudice; if the need arises again, a new RfC will be opened. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals below.

The wikimedia-l list administrators (Austin, Ijon/Asaf (WMF), Shani, and Jayvdb) will default to *enacting* all four proposals, but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition than support.

The list administrators will count votes after two weeks (including votes provided on the mailing list), and post a more refined final version back to the mailing list for final comment.

Statement of the issue

The list admins of wikimedia-l regularly receive complaints about the frequent posters to the 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.

The list admins are proposing the following four limits 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 the wikimedia-l mailing 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.

Proposals

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 multiple 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.

Note: people using a free and standard email client, such as Thunderbird, can easily skip such tangents by enabling threading (example view).

Support

Support as proposer and on behalf of the list admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Libcub (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CristianCantoro (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Even if as a temporary measure. Six individuals account for 25% of all email to wikimedia-l. Consistently. Month in month out. We need to allow other voices to be heard. Not the same ones time and time and time again. Seddon (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hardly anyone exceeds this, Sadads (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- If a month is roughly 30 days, 15 posts is one post every other day. Regardless of the actual frequency that is a healthy, substantive amount of participation. I trust that moderators and other participants will use common sense if a healthy conversationalist moderately exceeds this soft limit. Ckoerner (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RadiX ∞ 14:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that new voices will speak up if established voices speak less. Also, if anyone feels strongly about an issue, there are other public prominent ways to be heard including writing for [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|The Signpost or other community newsletters. Sometimes I see old issues raised repeatedly in the mailing list without developing. I do not have the feeling that anyone raises unimportant issues in the mailing list, but I do wish that deeper discussions could happen on wiki. We need to make other communication options more attractive because the mailing list cannot address tough issues. If 15 is too low of a limit then I could go with 20 or 25. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and like Ck hope mods will use common sense. Though a slight improvement on this would be explicitly naming 3 levels of moderation: ~30 posts/month (everyone), ~15/month (repetitive / difficult posters, frequently called out by others), ~5/month (banned or alt/anon accounts). The precise numbers aren't as important and may change over time; the important thing is the social norm that people who ignore negative feedback, or consistently derail discussions, are invited to speak less. –SJ talk 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support less the exact number and more the sense, as noted by Seddon and SJ, that there remains a problem with individuals who dominate conversations by the volume of their messages. I think it would hit closer to the mark to use a percentage formula - moderation may kick in when someone sends more than 5% of the mails to the list that month, or more than 20% of the mails to a particular thread (or whatever we conclude is an optimal percentage to use). --Michael Snow (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Broadly, yes. Agreeing with SJ and Michael Snow. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The issue is not so much that 15 emails per month is too much per-se, but that over the lifetime of this email list there is always a small group of people (while the people change, the fact remains) who dominate the list. This method proposed is the easiest way to address the issue even if it is not necessarily the most scientific :-) The 'soft' nature is important, to address the concerns below about when there's a particularly important issue happening. Wittylama (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--MF-W 16:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziko (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd prefer admins be able to limit people at their discretion Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An average of one post every two days seems very reasonable for a mailing list. This obviously won't solve some of the issues that have been brought up recently (civility, unconstructive nitpickiness, etc.), but I think it can help a wee bit, while also (more importantly) allow other voices to be heard. If it was a hard quota I'd be opposed, but it's a soft quota - very frequent posters can still get through with moderator discretion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with adjustments per SJ and Michael Snow. Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know that this will solve the problem on its own, but I do think it will help. Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 22:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malyacko (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the soft quota doesn't absolutely prevent posting beyond the quota, and because the list admins can easily approve any and all "extra" posts at any time. I hope that the lower level will encourage broader participation by making the most prominent voices occasionally think twice about posting immediately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose To be honest, I find this limitation too strong. It is better to close unconstructive topics or flood on the spot.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ymblanter · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems this might easily become a stumbling block for reasonable contribution; as above. --Pi zero (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO too strict rule. There might be some topics where you want/need to write many replies. Stryn (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just reed the lists, I don't post there, but I have not experienced so much disruption from heavy posters. 15 is nothing, 30 is only one per day, that's not much es well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can see that this rule would prevent lots of discussions during crisis such as what happened in early 2016. Please discuss with the people that may post a bit too much, but do not prevent discussion from happening. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't post to the distribution list but I am subscribed to it. I do not feel the current volume is too high. Sometimes people post regularly in a conversation addressing every single detail on other people responses or lack some civility (to put it mildly). However, I do not see how this will address either situation. On the other hand, this might discourage people from sending valuable contributions just because they reached or are about to reach their limit. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The existing limit seems fine to me. I'd even be fine with lifting it altogether. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No issue with the current limit Llwyld (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "[M]ultiple list subscribers still clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests the current quota is too high." is a non-sequitur. A major advantage of mailing lists over wiki talk pages is that it is very easy to filter (or just ignore) comments based on the sender, and each reader can adjust their score file individually. (Which is much harder to do for all the "Congratulations!" mails that flood the list regularly.) --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not convince setting the limit at 15 is going to improve discussion, sometimes issues need to be talked through. Gnangarra (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the issue was not the quota, but the "soft part"--Strainu (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quota should be hard, and should be even lower--like maybe 5 posts max per person. 😂 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a soft quota?

Can someone explain what the meaning of "soft quota" is here? Does the mailing list send you an e-mail message that says, "Hey, you're posting a lot" if you exceed it? Require manual approval of your messages after that point? I'm assuming that a "hard quota" would actually refuse to let you send additional messages, and that this isn't the behavior that would be seen under this system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the page "Wikimedia-l", the term soft quota links to w:Disk quota#Types of quotas, which provides some context, but is precisely what we do. What you have described is much closer to reality.

Typically we check a persons post count if we think someone is approaching or exceeding the limit, and we notify them, or put them on moderation if they have already exceeded it and we feel their behaviour is already disruptive to good discourse.

A person can still send emails to the list when they have been moderated, but their emails will be held in the queue until someone processes them, or (and this is very rare in my experience) rejected if we feel the emails are unhelpful with a private or public note explaining why (private if we think that they will appreciate the superficial slap on the wrist and can usually self-moderate, or public if they feel we are being oppressive, and hence transparency is needed). Moderation is then lifted at the end of the month, if there were no subsequent problems. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Support

Support as proposer and on behalf of the list admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Craig Franklin (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CristianCantoro (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seddon (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sadads (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the inclusion of the mailing list seems apropos Ckoerner (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear-cut case. RadiX ∞ 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stryn (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this but I have no idea how they plan to enforce this in any cases but the few were the person in question has publicly disclosed the relationship between the banned account and the subscribed email address. I will really appreciate if the proposers could provide some clarification on this matter. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –SJ talk 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Snow (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ainali (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. Forum-shopping to find the next group to harass should not be tolerated. Being globally-banned requires a LOT of bad-faith effort - there is no reason why the mailing lists should give these people the benefit of [an extra] doubt. Wittylama (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. Amir (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support global ban is a big stick when its used it should apply to all community activities Gnangarra (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but should be implicit for all lists, per Bluerasberry. Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Strainu (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 22:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malyacko (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose: Similar to our treatment of IRC, a ban from one forum does not typically automatically extend to other forums. Problematic mailing list posters who have been banned elsewhere can be dealt with in the same way as problematic mailing list posters who have not been banned elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "en:Exception that proves the rule" The rule should be that globally banned users are not permitted to engage with any Wikimedia community project. Wikimedia-l is a Wikimedia community project, and it should be taken for granted that globally banned users are not welcome here without having a specific rule. If Wikimedia-l enacts this rule, then that sets a precedent that either Wikimedia-l is not a Wikimedia community project or that global bans do not apply to all Wikimedia projects. Of course I agree with disallowing banned users on Wikimedia-l but this is a dangerous rule to make because it imagines a nonexistent rule that globally banned users have a range of options for communicating in Wikimedia projects, but exceptionally, Wikimedia-l disallows globally banned users. I do not want any ambiguity or special rule sets - globally banned users are globally banned from everything wiki, broadly defined. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough as argument, thanks for bringing that up. What about rephrasing it to 'confirm the existing practice'? Effeietsanders (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Effeietsanders: I feel like I am missing something here, and this conversation is weird. This strange statement seems to be targeted to exactly 5 people who (so far as I know) have never posted to Wikimedia-l and who probably do not know that Wikimedia-l exists. Why do people here seem so interested in making a rule or confirmation of a rule when an existing policy covering the same issue is in place and when there is no public evidence of the current policy having any shortcoming?

Despite my confusion, yes, I am ready to confirm that existing rules prohibit globally banned people from posting on this list or any other Wikimedia community space. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per MZMcBride Llwyld (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is essentially a rule that only affects 5 (five) people. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Blue's statement. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/discuss

How do you know who is globally banned if they use a different alias? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave that to the discretion of the list admins. These rules should be used a tool, and if they overlook someone every now and then, that's not a big deal to me. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect to the current list admins, or the proposers, but I would prefer a transparent ruling that draws some lines, not a vague and unenforceable ruling. At present, it is not clear which it is. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that discretion is a key part of all these proposals. Bad faith actors in the wikiverse are very good at 'wiki-lawyering' - following the letter of the rules even if they break the spirit. And, 'good faith' is subjective anyway. I would be very happy for the admins to feel empowered to use MORE discretion, not less. Wittylama (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone state whether any activity is prompting this rule change? If I understand correctly, this rule will only apply to the 5 people listed at list of globally banned users. As best as I can determine, none of these 5 have ever posted to a wiki mailing list. It seems like a reasonable rule but I am surprised that others seem to believe that global bans never applied to the mailing list before. Are the mailing lists not part of what the global wiki rules routinely cover? Besides the mailing lists, what other wiki community spaces are not covered by global community bans? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no recent activity, but it ensures that the next globally banned person knows in advance that wikimedia-l is not a venue of last appeal/disruption. A clearer framework means less surprises. We have many other lists, and there are offsite forums, where a globally banned person can present their case.

While most people already assume that globally banned users are not permitted on wikimedia-l, a globally banned user probably feels they are different/special, and it doesnt hurt to spell it out to them clearly in advance. It allows the list admins to avoid a debate with them; the community will have already spoken clearly, and we can then simply enforce, and not be expected to adjudicate whether the community would want their email to be allowed through moderation.

This is intended to be combined with the other proposals, so that someone who has been blocked by two communities within our movement knows they can appeal on wikimedia-l, with a limit of 5 posts per month, if they do it before a global ban is in place.

Finally, there are occasionally participants on wikimedia-l which are undisclosed identities, and they might be globally banned users. Under the new proposals here they would be limited to 5 posts by default, unless they divulge that they are a globally banned user in which case they should not post. This proposal ensures that they know that they are cheating this mailing list community by not being honest about their identity. This clarity may help them decide to be honest and stop posting to the list under a fake identity. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposal makes it an advantage to a globally banned person to subscribe with a new unlinked pseudonym. Not such a good thing. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the current situation anyway, is it not? or, Do you see posts by globally banned people currently appearing on the email list? This is status quo, stated plainly. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be formalising a loophole. I don't see the point. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Global bans are becoming more common, very slowly. So this is more likely to become relevant in the future. Formalizing this, will probably make it a bit easier for admins to investigate & act without long 'fairness' discussions. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am in agreement with all the intent that I read here. I also agree with Peter above about formalizing loopholes. It is enough for me to say "globally banned users are globally banned" because I think that is clear enough and I think that statement is easy enough to interpret. I want any admin on this list or elsewhere to have all the support they need in enforcing that without anyone second-guessing them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of an account blocked by two Wikimedia communities limited to five posts per month

Any person posting under the identity of an account locked / blocked / banned (etc) by at least two Wikimedia communities is to be 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 wikimedia-l 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 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, and they become the subject of regular moderation discussions for the list admins.

Support

Support as proposer and on behalf of the list admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine with me if the list admins are willing to trace all Wikimedia blocks and relate them to accounts, and if there is a kind of appeal process (I was once blocked on ru.wv without any reason - I mean having zero contributions, and such idiot blocks should not count)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list admins would only need to investigate if/when a person reaches/exceeds five posts using an identity that is blocked by two communities. It shouldnt surprise you that I know the account names of almost every poster to the mailing list, if they have one and have disclosed it, and especially if they have posted five times to the list in a single month. If you think about that cohort specifically, you probably know their account names also. We purposely avoided accounts with only one block because we are aware it is common enough for a person to find themselves blocked on a single project. This is very small number of cases each month. One or two would be my guess. And yes, sometimes even two blocks might be both unwarranted blocks, especially if the same admin blocked someone on two projects; I would expect we would ask the stewards to help us understand what was going on if a regular poster finds themselves subject to silly blocks. Appeals process is an interesting aspect. At the bottom of this page I have proposed an on-wiki review process of all limits imposed, which I had thought would suffice. Also, these limits are not a ban; the person affected still has a voice, and they can still post their appeal to the list. While such an appeal would be moderated by default if they have already exceeded their five post limit, we would push their appeal through moderation if we felt they had a half-decent argument -- we would have a conflict of interest if we rejected any appeal unless it was absolutely ridiculous and a waste of the list memberships time -- at worst, the list admins would hold their appeal email until the end of the month. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Vandenberg: Could I summarize that as "the list admins will use their common sense and make an exception where reasonable"? Effeietsanders (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice summary. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seddon (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sadads (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ckoerner (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friendly space <3 Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –SJ talk 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Snow (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hard to enforce, but a good thing to have 'on the books' nonetheless. I'd prefer something even more broad and discretionary, but people like clear rules so this is probably the most logical. Wittylama (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziko (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd prefer admins be able to limit people at their discretion Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This change is long overdue. We need to prevent the mailing list readers/admins from getting exhausted with that stuff, although I fully concur with the view Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has outlined. RadiX ∞ 03:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support two blocks and the person probably going to find themselves on a death spiral to a global ban this will help put the breaks on that Gnangarra (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the identity can be established without checkuser-like tools (i.e. previous posts, self-disclosure etc.) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strainu (talk)
Support Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malyacko (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per Ymblanter's reasons above, might reconsider if expanded to 3 or more. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, I has drafted this using '3 projects' as the criteria, and I had thought that the global ban policy used 3 projects as its criteria, but when I looked I saw that the existing policy was only 2 projects, so I adjusted the proposal to match that. The cohort of people that meet '2 projects' is almost identical to '3 projects' - it is people who running headlong down the path towards a global ban, and their abuse of wikimedia-l tends to be one of the last straw that causes the community to start, or endorse, a global ban. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not necessarily against this idea per se, but I am with Pbsouthwood here, also what Ymblanter points out is interesting. Looks like something that would require some work on part of the admins. --CristianCantoro (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: One of the great beauties of wikis and mailing lists (and IRC and Twitter and ...) is that it's ultimately very difficult to ban individuals, particularly determined individuals. I think this proposed rule is unenforceable and is an example of bureaucracy run amok. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulties of banning people isnt new to me; hence this proposal doesnt attempt it. It is easily enforced, for people who have integrity and want to abide by the rules, and gives them sufficient space to raise their complaints and participate at a rate which is quite normal. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My disconnect here is that the focus should be on the content, not the contributor. I don't particularly care if User:Bob, posting as bob@gmail.com, gets blocked on two Wikimedia wikis. I care that Bob's mailing list posts are good. Perhaps the question of mailing list poster volume is better framed as a question of repetition.

The use of "Wikimedia communities" instead of "Wikimedia wikis" or even "Wikimedia projects" also makes me pretty wary. If a user is banned from two Wikimedia-related IRC channels, for example, would that be sufficient? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MZMcBride. --Pi zero (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the very definition of assuming bad faith. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Different wikis have very different standards of accountability or even a definition of why people might get their accounts blocked. List moderation should be based on what happens on the list. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

What is a "Wikimedia community"? Is a mailing list a community? Is a user group or chapter? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the result of this vote, I think this cannot be enforced. Maybe I am missing something here but it looks like this proposal (and some parts of the other items) assume that there is some sort of relationship between MediaWiki accounts and email addresses subscribed to the list. You can probably guess what my email address is and you might be correct and the same might be true for some other users but it will be just a guess and I am not sure how that can be generalized to everyone. Anyone on the net can subscribe to the mailing list with an email address called lsanabria@random_email_provider.com and that does not mean in anyway that such an email is associated in anyway with my MediaWiki identity. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lsanabria: See Observations about Mailman 3 posted just a few days ago. It seems that the next software upgrade could link or require wiki account registration to post to the mailing list. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read that conversation but it looked to me more like an idea for early consideration than an actual implementation plan and this proposal does not seem to be structured as depending on that upgrade. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it is an idea at this point, but I still feel a connection between this proposal and that idea. We are trending toward more connected accounts. You are correct to say that this rule would be hard to enforce now but if we flipped a switch then that changes. It seems probable to me that the software which has been in use for years will be upgraded. That upgrade offers an option for enforcement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting mailing list posts to Wikimedia wiki user names would solve "does this post by this user belong to this specific wiki account?" But it does not solve "is bob@gmail.com the same as bob@yahoo.com?" and it does not solve the "Bob can create a lot of wiki accounts and e-mail addresses to match with them for almost free." --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five 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, and needs to post to wikimedia-l to spark the discussion and draw attention to their meta page.

Support

Support as proposer and on behalf of the list admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Libcub (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CristianCantoro (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after giving some thought.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seddon (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sadads (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ckoerner (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –SJ talk 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ainali (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, this would be helpful. With some sympathy for Michael Snow's point below, but if someone genuinely needs to draw the movement's attention to something, then that can be done in a handful of emails. However lengthy contributions on-list from anonymous critical voices aren't really helpful. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed with Chris Keating but also Michael Snow - That is, I'd like to see this feature and ALSO the discretionary option of the admins to "moderating those who bait or hijack threads". That latter, however, is harder to formally define and some people are already complaining that these proposals are too discretionary in nature. Wittylama (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd prefer admins be able to limit people at their discretion Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This change is long overdue. We need to prevent the mailing list readers/admins from getting exhausted with that stuff, although I fully concur with the view Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has outlined. RadiX ∞ 03:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but also agree with Chris/Witty/Chaseme. Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malyacko (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I do not believe people should be force to disclose their identity and personal information to post to the list. New users, understood as email addresses that have not posted before, are moderated already and their contributions should be allowed based on their content, not just on their number. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For much the same reason as opposing the proposal directly above. I may be in the minority, but I find the overall problem statement here to be very weak and unconvincing. And it's not as though I'm unfamiliar with this mailing list and its history. This page reads like a list of proposals that are solutions in search of problems. It's also pretty unsettling to watch the moderators (such that they are) of this mailing list attempt to create castes of users based on "real world identity" purity tests. Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why the moderators of a particular Wikimedia mailing list have privately decided that it's reasonable to propose appointing themselves identity verification police. Please go do something useful. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the description may match some people who would be best moderated, but I'm less confident that this should be the basis on which we moderate them. I think I'd prefer to leave it to the list admins to use more discretion in moderating those who bait or hijack threads, or in other ways show that their real purpose in posting has nothing to do with a legitimate grievance. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Michael Snow. While this would quieten some noxious individuals, I'd rather they were quietened because of their noxiousness rather than for choosing to conceal their identity for whatever reason. Craig Franklin (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I'm unconvinced of the need. Llwyld (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs clarity about how personal information is to be handled under the proposed procedure. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Requires checkuser-like tools IMHO. (yes, I am aware of webmail, but still)--Strainu (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the content of an argument is more important than who's making it. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary. If someone is a problem they can be moderated, and the duck test would be extremely easy to apply from that point on. If someone is a true sockmaster, it's far too easy for them to set up a well behaved sock to get around this extra bureaucracy. The only people who would get 'punished' are likely to be those who are untroublesome. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/discuss

I admit to very mixed feelings about this. I rarely contribute to wikimedia-l (over on en.wn, in some historical periods we referred to it as "troll-l"), though if a serious reason to do so came up I expect five-per-month could very quickly become burdensome. I've never identified to the Foundation, though when first elected to en.wn ArbCom I was willing to do so if told (by someone official) it was necessary; I suppose I still would, although truthfully, after much thought following the superprotect nonsense and other events of that time, I consider the Foundation one of the least trustworthy parties around. And of course I don't usually think of my pseudonym as a matter of personal safety (though I've been glad of it when dealing with some on-wiki miscreants); it was never designed for serious protection, rather it's a social facilitator on the theory I could contribute to the sisterhood more effectively if neither I, nor other contributors, were distracted by baggage of my off-wiki self. I do value my pseudonymity. So I'm left with a sense of vague unease about the whole proposition. --Pi zero (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first few sentences you wrote I think are addressed by the proposal. Folks such as yourself could post with pseudonymity separate from your on-wiki pseudonym 5 times a month. In cases where that's valid (like whistleblowing) no one would think much of it. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but I think the admins would not be quick to cut off valid conversation under such pseudonymity. Individuals acting in this area will need to be concise, but 5 posts seems like plenty of wiggle room to me. The rest - about identifying to the foundation and what not - is a little hard for me to link to the topic at hand. I don't know how to help put your mind at ease there and would appreciate any clarity. :) Ckoerner (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The broader part of my unease was always fuzzier. I'm moderately reassured. --Pi zero (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any history of problem which this proposal is seeking to address? Can anyone share an example? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This particular rule would go hand in hand with rule no.3, and tackle people trying to avoid that rule. However, I guess "Rogol" would be a very obvious case where this one would apply? Effeietsanders (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List community at large needs a mechanism for banning disruptive list members

Throughout this discussion several requests have been made regarding banning of users from the list.

Since we do not have an official banning policy approved by the community, we have drafted our thoughts on the matter, as well as a proposed procedure for your consideration. We are adding it as a 5th point in our “Request for Comments” in our journey towards a healthier community.

You are welcome to support it, oppose it, explicitly ask that it be left to the admins’ decision (which is arguably status quo), or propose an entirely new option that we haven’t thought about.

Best, The WM-L Admin Team.

The list is a tool for the community and it exists to serve the community. The ability to express dissenting opinions and to criticize is important in any movement, and is particularly cherished in our movement, which empowers individuals to an uncommon degree. But dissenting opinions should not mean a carte blanche to express it in offensive, threatening, or menacing ways. And critics have no immunity from criticism. Individuals' behavior can reduce the usefulness of the list, either intentionally (trolling) or unintentionally. Our proposals seek to minimize individuals' ability to reduce the usefulness of the list, without targeting specific individuals.

It is important to note that attempts to limit or ban individuals who express criticism *and* misbehave are sometimes interpreted as "silencing of criticism" and as an abuse of power. We cannot avoid these interpretations. Our duty as admins is to ensure that if a subscriber is banned, it would not be criticism alone that caused the ban; that the request to ban is not made by just one or few individuals, but rather a decision of the list community at large; and that the community decides based on clear criteria.

Some of the opposition votes on the list, Meta & Facebook thus far suggested that removing individuals would work better than adding rules. In general, and on many Wikipedias, it is considered unacceptable to approach a contributor's boss to complain about something that contributor said on-wiki. More than one member alluded to this norm in calling for a ban of a member based on his complaining about a WMF employee who is active on the list. However, it seems to us that specifically for Foundation (or chapters) employees, whose day jobs are in service of this community, it should be permissible to escalate a concern about an employee's conduct to their manager. This should of course be a last resort and executed with caution and discretion.

No doubt, some people may abuse this and file fake or trolling complaints. It should be up to the managers at WMF to apply their judgment (and seek guidance from their own managers, if necessary) in reviewing such complaints. We recognize that the risk of being complained about may deter some employees from engaging on the list, and that would be unfortunate. However, it would be absurd to make criticism of employee conduct the one topic the community is not allowed to discuss or complain about. Working for pay for this movement entails being open to community scrutiny and accepting the fact one may be held accountable by one's manager based on input from the community. Foundation staff also have the benefit of a reporting structure and a Human Resources department, both of which can support them in the face of the occasional unjustified or trolling complaint. It is up to all of us to express criticism fairly and calmly, to speak up for and not only against, and to prefer discussion to attack.

It is possible that the community would find an individual so disruptive and so draining, that the community moves to ban that individual. The list admins would execute such a ban if and when there is clear evidence of significant community support for such a move. An individual request to ban a subscriber of the list will not constitute such evidence. But if the community of this mailing list so chooses, it can organize a demonstration of its wishes and the list admins would act on it.

Finally, we would like to observe that the negative atmosphere on the list is greatly amplified by the relative shortage of constructive conversation. This is no doubt the result of years of frustration, but it is also a vicious cycle. Borrowing from Gandhi, we call upon everyone reading this with an interest in reviving the list as a useful discussion space to 'be the conversation you would like to see in the list'. A flourishing of constructive, collegial conversation would do much to reduce the relative significance of problematic or unpleasant contributors.

Option 1: Support that banning will be an act decided on by the community that the admins execute

Support on behalf of the list admins. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yger (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To clarify, I would prefer option 3 where the admins are allowed to act as per their abilities and experience, but this is a reasonable approach if they are not given the power to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not have any issue with the list admins, but they have never been elected by the community, and we are not discussing any election procedure (which I am not even sure I would support), therefore I would better vote for this option.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support List mods are not elected and have indefinite "terms", so this process at least allows some level of accountability. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: Oppose that banning will be an act decided on by the community

A small number of vocal contributors could disguise the community's true feelings (either way) about a single contributor, especially when many have no strong opinion. There is also no way of knowing which members of the community have read all the relevant messages (I receive every message but there is no way for admins to tell which I read and which I don't). The community should provide input into the decision, but the final decision should be taken by the administrators. Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 22:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will suck a lot of every from the community, and put bans too much in focus. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: Explicitly request that banning will be the admins' decision

Support First choice. The list admins are long-standing, widely respected community members. Surely they have the experience and ability to be able to make these decisions. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Gamaliel. List administrators are likely to be able to step back from a community storm in a teacup. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Give more leeway to the admins to use their discretion, as informed by community input - which they already receive from people contacting the mods privately. Wittylama (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have faith that the admins will consider the community's opinion, but ultimately it should be the admins' decision. Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 22:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Community input is important. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Offer other options for a banning procedure

I'd prefer to go with admin decision by default (as little energy as possible should go into negative things like bans), but with an obligation to explain somewhere if ban goes beyond a certain length, and the option for the community to override. (some may equal this with option 3?) Effeietsanders (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I advise putting your support under #3 with the conditions you'd like. Shani Evenstein. 13:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that anyone who has not been globally banned can post without repercussions, which is vital for whistle-blowing and transparency generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely. Once they have used their five posts, other 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 proposal, the list admins would not immediately add moderation or bans, but would introduce them 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 disrupt the discourse on the mailing list. If there are community objections on meta to a post limit imposed, the list admins can lift it, and refinements to the list moderation limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays out in practise. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please allow me to link to Lodewijk's post on wikimedia-l here, because I very much support his position. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 11:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(copying here for archive happiness)

Hey John,

Thanks for starting this discussion. I appreciate the efforts.

I don't have the impression that the exact height of the soft limit will solve any problems. It's fighting a sympton, rather than the cause of the issue. I'm fine either way, although I fear that having it at this level would discourage WMF employees to engage in active discussions when needed. As long as sensible exceptions are generously applied, I don't mind though.

Proposal 2,3 and 4 seem fine to me, but they come across as trying to find a very objective way to approach a subjective problem. They are fine approaches, but will never get to the core of the problem - they will cut down on some excesses though.

What I'm missing, is a proposal 5 that would have to tackle the more subjective question: how to handle contributors that are consistently unconstructive. I would personally appreciate a tighter control on civilty and constructiveness by the moderators, which could be covered by that. I don't know a good wording for that either, but would appreciate someone trying to make a proposal for that :)

Best, Lodewijk

I agree with Lodewijk. There are a very few that treats the list as their personal channel to make statements of their point of view in a number of issues. For me I am getting very irritated at them (2-4) and also of the very few who issue unconstructive and aggressive posts (2-3). It is much easier to moderate just these and let the rest of the rules be as they are.Yger (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a naive question: Would the volume of posts be less annoying to people if the email digest function could be changed so that emails would come only once a day? It would be the same number of posts, but fewer interruptions. I'd like to see this, but perhaps no one else cares.JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMatazzoni (WMF): I expect different people to have different answers to your question. In my case, I have a folder where all the wikimedia-l emails go to and will be marked as read. I check that folder whenever I want to, so there is no constant distraction. The issue is that even when you bulk process the emails and engage with them, there is very little diversity in terms of voices in wikimedia-l at this point in time. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Thanks for starting this discussion and RfC. I like wikimedia-l and I want to see it improved. :) I have one question before starting to engage more with the proposals (which btw, I'm not sure if I should do as a WMF staff member, I know different people have different takes on this): have we tried (in the past year) to survey wikimedia-l members and learn from them what /they/ want to see in this list? What things they see working? What things they see need a fix? While the current approach of taking actions based on complaints can fix some issues, it may take us to a sub-optimal solution. :) I'm happy to help with such a survey or research effort if you all (or some of you) decide that that's the path you want to move forward with. Otherwise, I'll contribute where I can. Thanks for taking steps to make things better. :) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an attempt at transparent decision-making, but all this discussion seems to be quite moot as long as wikimedia-l is a (secretly) moderated list. People have been moderated without explanations nor transparency and valuable community members have been excluded from participation for many months or even years (see some links). Most list members are not even aware that such exclusions are in place. --Nemo 04:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nemo, but this is a bit vague. Is there an overview of the people that are long term excluded, which have not been explained? I remember at least several instances where it was very obvious that and why people were banned - even though the people in question were of course not satisfied. You suggest in your post that you know what cases we talk about, so maybe it's good to discuss.

As a more general note: I find it thoroughly unproductive to use up list energy to discuss moderation practices in detail, especially when individual cases are involved. Can we find an alternative channel for that, where people can go if interested, and not all list members be bothered with it, unless there is actual abuse going on? Effeietsanders (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we had such a list, we would not have a problem of transparency. As far as I'm concerned, just knowing one name (Odder) is enough. Until that mistake is not solved in a permanent fashion, I don't trust wikimedia-l to be the list I knew. Nemo 17:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

@Ijon, Esh77, and Jayvdb: I suggest we move on from this topic, and either implement, or not implement. Would you do the honors of summarizing/drawing conclusions, and closing the RfC? Effeietsanders (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijon, Esh77, Jayvdb, and Effeietsanders: Was this ever implemented (or not)? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for asking, and apologies for missing the previous ping.)

It was not. We considered there to be no consensus, and insufficient support to make it urgent to implement any of the proposals. We remain with status quo by default. The list has grown much quieter since the time of the RFC, but if necessary, we can revisit some of the ideas above. Ijon (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijon: Fine. I'm going to close this as not successful; just open it again if the need arises. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]