This is not occurring on enwiki; however, if it was, given that this is a longstanding user I would expect to see a pattern of warnings, a long set of diffs for prior incidents, clear documentation of both the rule *and* the social context for the problem before someone gets blocked for a week. If someone was confused or objected that would all be on the record.
I know better than to suggest every project's internal enforcement and policies work the same way, but ... three days into the discussion thread, I am still confused, lacking prior incident information, lacking prior warnings documentation, lacking explanation of the social context, lacking explanation for why this "wtf" was enforced but not any of the apparently 500-ish other instances in history on this project.
The enwiki assumption is that it's the responsibility for acting administrators or arbitrators to justify and explain if someone challenges or asks for clarification. That's there for a reason. Not that every single act (personally identifiable information leaks, sexual harassment, issues involving minors, etc) can be fully publicly explained, but excluding those classes of issue it all should be if someone asks.
I don't feel comfortable watching these exchanges and not getting real context and explanation. I went back and reread again tonight and it's still not coming through. I don't know this was an improper action, but it's not explained properly yet.
Can someone on CoC give the rest of us the type of information we'd see if this was enwiki? If not, can you explain why not? I know you may not (yet or ever) always require that, but it's what is needed to stop these types of threads and questions.
Thank you
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernandez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Thanks Ori for sharing your perspective, you are alone.
Thanks Amir and Lucie for sharing your perspectives. They are very much appreciated.
We are people interacting with other people. We must never forget that and we should treat each other with respect, specially in the online spaces with written communication, as there is so much context lost.
I think it is disingenuous to think this is about using offensive language once. Keep it in mind when discussing the actions of the CoC committee, because they are reasonable *people* doing their best to uphold our communities and spaces to great standards in their volunteer time. Please re-read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct to put things in context. Some excerpts that I consider relevant:
*In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming community, we are committed to making participation in Wikimedia technical projects a respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone, [...][...]
Prolific
contributions and technical expertise are not a justification for lower standards of behavior.Unacceptable behavior https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct#Unacceptable_behavior*
*Personal attacks, [...], or deliberate intimidation.*
*Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments.*
*[...]*
*Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication,
following, or any form of stalking.*
*[...]*
*Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained
disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling).*
*[...]*
*Attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee or appeals
body, e.g. unblocking someone during a period the Committee banned
them.*
I am personally very thankful that we have it and of the work that the committee members have been doing for all of us.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:57 AM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Gergo Tisza wrote:
- First of all, I'd like to thank the Code of Conduct committee for
doing
their job. It's a hard job where they need to make difficult judgement calls, and are criticized harshly when they make a bad judgement and ignored at best when they make a good one (although more likely they
still
get criticized harshly). It's also a necessary job, so we should be glad that someone is willing to do it (even if imperfectly, as human beings
are
bound to). It's not unlike the role of Wikipedia administrators in that regard.
Most of Wikimedia's and most of MediaWiki's existence has progressed without a group of sticklers patrolling for language (or apparently tone) that they happen to disagree with, at that time, in that context. Here's you (Gergo) using the abbreviation "WTF" in May 2018: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192896#4170798. It's completely possible for someone to fake outrage at your Phabricator Maniphest comment, just as it's completely possible, and perhaps probable, for people to fake outrage at an expanded "What the fuck." comment.
Isarra wrote:
I would put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all to step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement,
but
to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside the committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken is available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible
even
when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials.
Yes to all of this. The lack of transparency regarding how many "incidents" this committee handles and what level of severity they are means that any discussion about the necessity of having this committee is incredibly difficult. Someone saying "What the fuck." on a Phabricator task is not the same as someone threatening to kill another user. Any
kind
of flat "this is how many complaints we received" statistic will be incredibly misleading. (Consider a "number of crimes" statistic for any city that conflates vandalism with rape.) Just how necessary is this
group
that has only been around for about 15 months? Is its presence doing more harm than good? Framing this group as a necessity is misguided without substantiating the claim. Having watched similar arguments used to
justify
expanded security theater at airports and public venues, I actually think a sudden embrace of increased, questionable bureaucracy is pernicious.
Gergo Tisza wrote:
- Also, do consider that MZMcBride had the option to reach out to the
CoC
committee and ask their help in understanding exactly which of his comments were problematic and in what way, and how they could be
reframed
in a constructive way. He had the same option the previous time when the committee merely warned him for a similar infraction. That he chose not to is hardly the committee's fault.
Most of the reason I didn't see the e-mail about my account being
disabled
is that someone decided to use the wiki software at mediawiki.org to
send
an e-mail instead of sending an e-mail directly. I don't understand this practice or why it's appropriate or desirable.
MZMcBride
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l