Wikitech-l August 2018

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

101 participants
97 discussions

How to do HTML in a Wiki Page
by David Whitten 16 Aug '18

16 Aug '18

I have a program that generates HTML, complete with anchors and links that refer to them. (some of the anchor links cross files) I have not successfully put "<A>" tags into my wiki page. The <H1> etc markers with "=" generate them, but I want to put in some of my own. I don't want to break any existing anchors either. I hope to use the maintenance scripts to convert the HTML pages into WIKI pages, and I understand that I will essentially be using only the contents of the <BODY> tags to be the body of the wiki page, as the <HEAD> and <HTML> tags will be part of the page generated by the wiki. Does anyone have any guidance or web pages I should read? Thank you, David 713-870-3834

2 1

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled
by Yaron Koren 16 Aug '18

16 Aug '18

Nuria Ruiz <nuria(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the comfort of the > majority. This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe anyone's safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it seems like just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority and majority here? > The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as an engineer > agree that closing it shows little understanding of how technical teams do > track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for sure) but the > harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of line for > while. This seems like the current argument - that it's not really about the use of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by MZMcBride. What this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought up was a blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to say something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out, there's a lack of transparency here. -Yaron

21 38

My Phabricator account has been disabled
by MZMcBride 15 Aug '18

15 Aug '18

Hi. My Phabricator account has been disabled. I don't seem to have any e-mail about this action, so I'm mostly just curious who did it and why. If there's a log entry somewhere, that would be nice, but I don't know how transparent Phabricator or its admins are. I suppose it would also be nice to know if the person ever plans on undoing this unexplained disablement. I have over 56,000 unread e-mails in my "Phabricator" folder, so if I've overlooked an explanatory e-mail, please let me know! In the meantime, I guess I'll just, uhh, log out to view Phabricator. MZMcBride

34 91

C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct
by Victoria Coleman 15 Aug '18

15 Aug '18

Hello everyone, The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would like to issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] and the community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the development and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of Conduct was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic personal communications that limit participation and cause real harm to community members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone for the ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others badly is not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important movement in the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports self-governance consistent with our values. This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our projects and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the critical vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and forever. Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and Victoria https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>

5 4

ForkableMaintenance: thoughts and help with tests/code coverage
by Brion Vibber 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Hey all! While working on some maintenance scripts for TimedMediaHandler I've been trying to make it easier to do scripts that use multiple parallel processes to run through a large input set faster. My proposal is a ForkableMaintenance class, with an underlying QueueingForkController which is a refactoring of the OrderedStreamingForkController used by (at least) some CirrusSearch maintenance scripts. Patch in progress: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/451099/ The expected use case is a relatively long loop of reading input data interleaved with running CPU-intensive or DB-intensive jobs, where the individual jobs are independent and order of input is not strongly coupled. (Ordering of _running_ of items on the child processes is not guaranteed, but the order of result processing is guaranteed to be in the same order as input, making output across runs predictable for idempotent processing.) A simple ForkableMaintenance script might look like: class Foo extends ForkableMaintenance { // Handle any input on the parent thread, and // pass any data as JSON-serializable form into // the queue() method, where it gets funneled into // a child process. public function loop() { for ( $i = 0; $i < 1000; $i++) { $this->queue( $i ); } } // On the child process, receives the queued value // via JSON encode/decode. Here it's a number. public function work( $count ) { return str_repeat( '*', $count ); } // On the parent thread, receives the work() return value // via JSON encode/decode. Here it's a string. public function result( $data ) { $this->output( $data . "\n" ); } } Because data is serialized as JSON and sent over a pipe, you can't send live objects like Titles or Pages or Files, but you can send arrays or associative arrays with fairly complex data. There is a little per-job overhead and multiple threads can cause more contention on the database server etc, but it scales well on the subtitle format conversion script I'm testing with, which is a little DB loading and some CPU work. On an 8-core/16-thread test server: threads runtime (s) speedup 0 320 n/a 1 324 0.987654321 2 183 1.74863388 4 105 3.047619048 8 66 4.848484848 16 58 5.517241379 I've added a phpunit test case for OrderedStreamingForkController to make sure I don't regress something used by other teams, but noticed a couple problems with using this fork stuff in the test runners. First, doing pcntl_fork() inside a phpunit test case has some potential side effects, since there's a lot of tear-down work done in destructors even if you call exit() after processing completes. As a workaround, when I'm having the child procs send a SIGKILL to themselves to terminate immediately without running test-case destructors. Second, probably related to that I'm seeing a failure in the code coverage calculations -- it's seeing some increased coverage on the parent process at least but seems to think it's returning a non-zero exit code somewhere, which marks the whole operation as a failure: https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/job/mediawiki-phpunit-coverage-patch-d… Worst case, can probably exclude these from some automated tests but that always seems like a bad idea. :D If anybody else is using, or thinking about using, ForkController and its friends and wants to help polish this up, give a shout! -- brion

4 8

Discovery Weekly Update for the week starting 2018-08-06
by Chris Koerner 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Hello, This is the weekly update from the Search Platform team for the week starting 2018-08-06. As always, feedback and questions welcome. == Discussions == === Search === * Erik and David worked on setting up a new branch for elasticsearch 6.x (as a first step) [0], which is mostly done but will need a follow-on task to get into production [1] * Erik worked on a small but weird bug where Cirrussearch on test.wikipedia.org was not able to search on specific non-zero namespaces and fixed it [2] * Stas fixed the error message for haswbstatement without valid query [3] and searching for property without specifying the value [4], e.g. <code>haswbstatement:P231</code>. --- [0] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199256 [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200198 [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201584 [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200824 [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199886 Subscribe to receive on-wiki (or opt-in email) notifications of the Discovery weekly update. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Newsletter:Discovery_Weekly The archive of all past updates can be found on MediaWiki.org: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Discovery/Status_updates Interested in getting involved? See tasks marked as "Easy" or "Volunteer needed" in Phabricator. [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/qW51XhCCd8.7/#R [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/5KEPuEJh9TPS/#R Yours, Chris Koerner Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation

1 0

Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 181, Issue 42
by kevin zhang 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Amir, what you are suggesting at this point is basically that it doesn't matter because that bug report was closed once and intended to remain closed (despite being reopened) with reason that the WordPress website isn't ready for public consumption yet was made public to replace the previous. If the intent was to test something, should have done so privately. All we are doing now is just dragging this on and blowing up simply because of communication failures. Since someone insisted a couple messages ago, if this isn't a hobby project yet is donation funded then what exactly is this considered? Doubtful it counts as volunteer led if the foundation seems to insist on their way judging by level executives. WMF is funded by donations and grants, it's a non profit...not for commercial profit so there is a serious disconnect going on On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:42 PM <wikitech-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to > wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wikitech-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wikitech-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct > (Amir Ladsgroup) > 2. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct (Pine W) > 3. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct > (Isarra Yos) > 4. Re: My Phabricator account has been disabled (Petr Bena) > 5. Re: My Phabricator account has been disabled (Amir Ladsgroup) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:08:57 +0200 > From: Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code > of Conduct > Message-ID: > < > CA+ttme0tKn3xEnw4ayaQ-VxHu5-jvPp30eHOqKG6vpOvSQMMmA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hey, > As a member of Code of conduct committee I just wanted to express how much > I appreciate your statement. The work we are doing is not fun, we are > dealing with frustrations, harassments, trolling, and all sorts of the dark > side of the Wikimedia movement but I genuinely believe that this type of > work is vital to keep the movement moving forward, to make us more > welcoming and foster a diverse environment. > > All of the support I've received, private and public, online and offline is > overwhelming. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > > Best > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:46 PM Victoria Coleman <vcoleman(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would like to > > issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] and > the > > community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the development > > and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy > > functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of Conduct > > was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic > personal > > communications that limit participation and cause real harm to community > > members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone for > the > > ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others badly is > > not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important movement > in > > the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports > > self-governance consistent with our values. > > > > This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our > projects > > and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the critical > > vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and > > forever. > > > > Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and > Victoria > > > > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct < > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:17:00 +0000 > From: Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, > "wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code > of Conduct > Message-ID: > <CAF=dyJhZHEM-2h= > wMXh+cAWNOPqq8akg742dJE0kiP7Pp9Ys4g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > James, let's stay on topic, please. If you want to talk about other issues > then please start a new thread. > > Victoria, I have mixed feelings about this statement. > > I agree that we want to have civility in technical spaces, and a technical > code of conduct is one important way of working toward that goal. I also > agree that having ways to resolve disputes and deal with problematic > behavior is important. > > On the other hand, I think several aspects of your statement are less than > ideal. > > * This situation is being discussed civilly in a single thread on > Wikitech-l, and I see no reason to start a new thread. > > * You added Wikimedia-l to this discussion, and Wikimedia-l is outside of > the scope of the TCoC. I think that adding Wikimedia-l to the discussion is > an unnecessary escalation. Please refrain from unnecessary escalations. > > * While the opinions of the WMF executives are somewhat influential, my > understanding is that WMF wants the Technical Code of Conduct and the > committee that enforces it to have political legitimacy in the community. > Involvement of the WMF C-levels works against that. I think that you should > let the participants in the discussion (which I feel is now generally tense > but constructive) work out this situation among themselves / ourselves > without the intervention of WMF executives. Although there are situations > in which the intervention of WMF executives would be helpful, I think that > this isn't one of them. > > * The statement that you made comes across to me as endorsing the status > quo. I am not sure that this was your intent. I feel that adjustments to > policies and practices should be considered, partially based on the > constructive portions of the discussions that are happening on Wikitech-l. > > I agree that the TCoC Committee has a difficult job when the try to do it > well, and I support the goal of having civility in technical spaces. I > think that it would be possible, and appropriate, to express support for > good-faith efforts of the Committee's members and those participating in > the discussion in Wikitech-l, and for the goals of the CoC, without > unnecessary escalation or intervention from WMF executives that may make a > difficult situation more challenging. Sometimes less involvement is the > better way to achieve one's goals. > > Thank you for listening, > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:23:18 +0000 > From: Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> > To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia developers > <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code > of Conduct > Message-ID: <80dea45d-9ffc-020e-7ef5-c3b85c01c511(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Sorry, I apparently replied to the wrong mailing list. > > On 14/08/18 18:19, Isarra Yos wrote: > > As a total random, I'd also like to second this - as much as I think > > the CoC and the committee in particular have room to improve in how > > things are handled, this will never happen without proper support for > > the work they're doing in the first place. > > > > While some of us have been somewhat flabbergasted by specific events, > > these are after all the people we need to be working with to actually > > resolve the issues at hand, and indeed the events (and handling > > thereof) themselves have also highlighted the need for more clearer > > standards moving forward. I'm glad to see some steps have already been > > taken. Let's continue in this vein. > > > > Thank you! > > > > -I > > > > On 14/08/18 18:08, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > >> Hey, > >> As a member of Code of conduct committee I just wanted to express how > >> much > >> I appreciate your statement. The work we are doing is not fun, we are > >> dealing with frustrations, harassments, trolling, and all sorts of > >> the dark > >> side of the Wikimedia movement but I genuinely believe that this type of > >> work is vital to keep the movement moving forward, to make us more > >> welcoming and foster a diverse environment. > >> > >> All of the support I've received, private and public, online and > >> offline is > >> overwhelming. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > >> > >> Best > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:46 PM Victoria Coleman > >> <vcoleman(a)wikimedia.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would > >>> like to > >>> issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] > >>> and the > >>> community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the > >>> development > >>> and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy > >>> functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of > >>> Conduct > >>> was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic > >>> personal > >>> communications that limit participation and cause real harm to > >>> community > >>> members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone > >>> for the > >>> ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others > >>> badly is > >>> not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important > >>> movement in > >>> the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports > >>> self-governance consistent with our values. > >>> > >>> This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our > >>> projects > >>> and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the > >>> critical > >>> vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and > >>> forever. > >>> > >>> Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and > >>> Victoria > >>> > >>> > >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct < > >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:29:42 +0200 > From: Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled > Message-ID: > <CA+4EQ5eYsJ1FxEoyYukcXO9kVhN=zf_gzSs-1nAtH= > mZ2_NoPQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that > this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they > continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is > that what really happened? > > The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really see > what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it > appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any > language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban + > removal of content. > > I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If > someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit > silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you > are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem, > but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is not > a language, but personal attack itself. > > If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them. Banning > someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think > our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind > of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's > not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could > take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers away > by giving them bans that are hardly justified. > > P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously > recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build > an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for > interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice. And > randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic > explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me... > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <dbarratt(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at > the > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context and > >> backstory. > >> > > > > That seems like really toxic behavior. > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of the > >> alleged long term abuse pattern. > >> > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at > the > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context and > >> backstory. That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would someone > >> just answer the question? What happened leading up to this to justify > the > >> block? If it's that well known, you can document it. > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Petr, > >> > > >> > Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive behavior > >> and > >> > creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't > have to > >> > waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions. > >> > > >> > I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our community > >> > friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the > means > >> to > >> > accomplish this. I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up to > the > >> > nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives > diverge > >> at > >> > that point. I also see lots of people on this list standing up for > what > >> > they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be organized > >> better > >> > so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our > shared > >> > statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the good > while > >> > more effectively addressing the worst in us. > >> > > >> > This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've been > >> > thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and > >> > libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which doesn't > >> > handle "negative laws" [1] well. For example, the Code of Conduct is > >> > mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could > rewrite > >> it > >> > in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to support > >> each > >> > other and the less powerful person in any conflict. We have a duty to > >> > speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this social > >> > space and have to maintain it together. If you see where I'm headed? > >> > Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting > project, > >> but > >> > it might be fun. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days > >> > > discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for saying > >> > > "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that > the > >> > > community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is that > >> > > what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of best > >> > > experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis? > >> > > > >> > > We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of > >> > > doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh, > come > >> > > on... > >> > > > >> > > We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too hostile > to > >> > > use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules, > >> > > people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to spend > >> > > their free time on a different open source project. Most of us are > >> > > volunteers, we don't get money for this. > >> > > > >> > > P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put into > >> > > solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature) it > >> > > would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was so > >> > > desperate with the situation to use some swear words. > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <yaron57(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > Nuria Ruiz <nuria(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> > > >> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the > comfort > >> of > >> > > the > >> > > >> majority. > >> > > > > >> > > > This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe > >> anyone's > >> > > > safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it > seems > >> > like > >> > > > just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority > and > >> > > > majority here? > >> > > > > >> > > >> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as an > >> > > engineer > >> > > >> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how technical > >> > teams > >> > > do > >> > > >> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for sure) > >> but > >> > > the > >> > > >> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of > line > >> > for > >> > > >> while. > >> > > > > >> > > > This seems like the current argument - that it's not really about > the > >> > use > >> > > > of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by > MZMcBride. > >> > What > >> > > > this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought up > >> was > >> > a > >> > > > blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to say > >> > > > something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out, > >> > there's a > >> > > > lack of transparency here. > >> > > > > >> > > > -Yaron > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -george william herbert > >> george.herbert(a)gmail.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:41:35 +0200 > From: Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled > Message-ID: > < > CA+ttme3nYdXGbKG_esGovcaGGHEa4Yo6UGY07Qp9oScpn0W-BQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hey Petr, > We have discussed this before in the thread and I and several other people > said it's a straw man. > > The problem is not the WTF or "What the fuck" and as I said before the mere > use of profanity is not forbidden by the CoC. What's forbidden is "Harming > the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, > interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling).". > [1] When someone does something in phabricator and you *just* comment > "WTF", you're not moving the discussion forward, you're not adding any > value, you're not saying what exactly is wrong or try to reach a consensus. > Compare this with later comments made, for example: > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4502463 > > I hope all of this helps for understanding what's wrong here. > > [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct > Best > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:29 PM Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that > > this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they > > continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is > > that what really happened? > > > > The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really see > > what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it > > appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any > > language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban + > > removal of content. > > > > I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If > > someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit > > silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you > > are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem, > > but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is not > > a language, but personal attack itself. > > > > If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them. Banning > > someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think > > our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind > > of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's > > not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could > > take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers away > > by giving them bans that are hardly justified. > > > > P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously > > recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build > > an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for > > interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice. And > > randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic > > explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me... > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <dbarratt(a)wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at > > the > > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context > and > > >> backstory. > > >> > > > > > > That seems like really toxic behavior. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert < > george.herbert(a)gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of the > > >> alleged long term abuse pattern. > > >> > > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at > > the > > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context > and > > >> backstory. That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would > someone > > >> just answer the question? What happened leading up to this to justify > > the > > >> block? If it's that well known, you can document it. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Petr, > > >> > > > >> > Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive > behavior > > >> and > > >> > creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't > > have to > > >> > waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions. > > >> > > > >> > I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our > community > > >> > friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the > > means > > >> to > > >> > accomplish this. I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up to > > the > > >> > nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives > > diverge > > >> at > > >> > that point. I also see lots of people on this list standing up for > > what > > >> > they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be organized > > >> better > > >> > so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our > > shared > > >> > statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the good > > while > > >> > more effectively addressing the worst in us. > > >> > > > >> > This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've > been > > >> > thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and > > >> > libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which > doesn't > > >> > handle "negative laws" [1] well. For example, the Code of Conduct > is > > >> > mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could > > rewrite > > >> it > > >> > in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to > support > > >> each > > >> > other and the less powerful person in any conflict. We have a duty > to > > >> > speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this > social > > >> > space and have to maintain it together. If you see where I'm > headed? > > >> > Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting > > project, > > >> but > > >> > it might be fun. > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > Adam > > >> > > > >> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days > > >> > > discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for saying > > >> > > "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that > > the > > >> > > community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is > that > > >> > > what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of > best > > >> > > experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis? > > >> > > > > >> > > We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of > > >> > > doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh, > > come > > >> > > on... > > >> > > > > >> > > We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too hostile > > to > > >> > > use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules, > > >> > > people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to > spend > > >> > > their free time on a different open source project. Most of us are > > >> > > volunteers, we don't get money for this. > > >> > > > > >> > > P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put > into > > >> > > solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature) > it > > >> > > would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was > so > > >> > > desperate with the situation to use some swear words. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <yaron57(a)gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > Nuria Ruiz <nuria(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the > > comfort > > >> of > > >> > > the > > >> > > >> majority. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe > > >> anyone's > > >> > > > safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it > > seems > > >> > like > > >> > > > just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority > > and > > >> > > > majority here? > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as > an > > >> > > engineer > > >> > > >> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how > technical > > >> > teams > > >> > > do > > >> > > >> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for > sure) > > >> but > > >> > > the > > >> > > >> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of > > line > > >> > for > > >> > > >> while. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > This seems like the current argument - that it's not really > about > > the > > >> > use > > >> > > > of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by > > MZMcBride. > > >> > What > > >> > > > this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought > up > > >> was > > >> > a > > >> > > > blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to > say > > >> > > > something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out, > > >> > there's a > > >> > > > lack of transparency here. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -Yaron > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > >> > > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > >> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > >> > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list > > >> > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -george william herbert > > >> george.herbert(a)gmail.com > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > > >> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 181, Issue 42 > ******************************************* >

1 0

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct
by Isarra Yos 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Sorry, I apparently replied to the wrong mailing list. On 14/08/18 18:19, Isarra Yos wrote: > As a total random, I'd also like to second this - as much as I think > the CoC and the committee in particular have room to improve in how > things are handled, this will never happen without proper support for > the work they're doing in the first place. > > While some of us have been somewhat flabbergasted by specific events, > these are after all the people we need to be working with to actually > resolve the issues at hand, and indeed the events (and handling > thereof) themselves have also highlighted the need for more clearer > standards moving forward. I'm glad to see some steps have already been > taken. Let's continue in this vein. > > Thank you! > > -I > > On 14/08/18 18:08, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: >> Hey, >> As a member of Code of conduct committee I just wanted to express how >> much >> I appreciate your statement. The work we are doing is not fun, we are >> dealing with frustrations, harassments, trolling, and all sorts of >> the dark >> side of the Wikimedia movement but I genuinely believe that this type of >> work is vital to keep the movement moving forward, to make us more >> welcoming and foster a diverse environment. >> >> All of the support I've received, private and public, online and >> offline is >> overwhelming. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. >> >> Best >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:46 PM Victoria Coleman >> <vcoleman(a)wikimedia.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would >>> like to >>> issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] >>> and the >>> community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the >>> development >>> and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy >>> functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of >>> Conduct >>> was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic >>> personal >>> communications that limit participation and cause real harm to >>> community >>> members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone >>> for the >>> ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others >>> badly is >>> not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important >>> movement in >>> the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports >>> self-governance consistent with our values. >>> >>> This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our >>> projects >>> and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the >>> critical >>> vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and >>> forever. >>> >>> Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and >>> Victoria >>> >>> >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct < >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >

1 0

Wednesday: Technical Advice IRC Meeting
by Michael Schönitzer 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Sorry for cross-posting! Reminder: Technical Advice IRC meeting again **Wednesday 3-4 pm UTC** on #wikimedia-tech. Question can be asked in English, Bulgarian & Persian. The Technical Advice IRC Meeting (TAIM) is a weekly support event for volunteer developers. Every Wednesday, two full-time developers are available to help you with all your questions about Mediawiki, gadgets, tools and more! This can be anything from "how to get started" over "who would be the best contact for X" to specific questions on your project. If you know already what you would like to discuss or ask, please add your topic to the next meeting: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Advice_IRC_Meeting Hope to see you there! Michi (for the Technical Advice IRC Meeting crew) -- Michael F. Schönitzer Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

1 0

Making two factor auth less annoying
by Petr Bena 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

Hello, I would like to do some major changes to two factor auth. I am cross posting this on phabricator and the mailing list to give it some more attention and to start some proper discussion before anyone starts working on this: Right now there are only two options for two factor authentication: * Don't use two-factor authentication (insecure) * Use two factor authentication (annoying as hell) With two factor authentication it doesn't seem to be possible to make session persistent and it really is extremely annoying to look for your mobile phone, open the app and fill in the code everytime you want to do some simple wiki action. I am very lazy and even found myself to rather decide not to do a minor change (be it fix of typo correction etc. in article on English Wikipedia etc) rather than going through the hassle of using the google authenticator. I think it would be really cool to have an option (or maybe even more of them?) that would help to specify when two factor auth is really desired, so that for example users could decide that for simple actions like wiki editing normal login would be sufficient, but for changes like: * Change of password * Change of (some) preferences * Admin actions (block, delete etc.) P.S. Unfortunately I no longer have so much free time to track every single thread in this mailing list, so maybe this is a duplicate of some older idea by someone else, if that's the case, please merge the phab task with whatever the other identical proposal is. Thank you

10 12

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Wikitech-l August 2018