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: -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

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:

Expecting every single comment to specifically move things forward seems... a bit excessive, frankly. Not everyone is going to have the vocabulary to properly express themselves, let alone the skill to fully explain exactly what the issues are, why they are, how to move forward, or whatever. And even then, I would argue that having input that isn't directly doing any of this can still be useful to indicating to others that can that such might indeed be in order, that there is indeed sufficient interest to merit the effort, or sufficient confusion that there might be more issue than immediately met the eye. A wtf from one person can help to get others involved to actually clarify, or ask followup questions, or what have you. It's not off topic. -I On 14/08/18 19:41, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

That's very valid but you don't see the CoCC bans anyone who makes an unconstructive or angry comment. The problem here happens when it happens too often from one person. When a pattern emerges. Do you agree that when it's a norm for one person and warnings are not working out, the option is to ban to show this sort of behavior is not tolerated? One hard part of these cases is that people see tip of an iceberg, they don't see number of reports, pervious reports and number of people who the user made uncomfortable so much that they bothered to write a report about the user for different comments and actions. That's one thing that shows the committee that it's a pattern and not a one-time thing. Best On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 21:49 Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Given that many of our users are from wikipedia, and as far as i understand (I am not a wikipedian), on Wikipedia, using increasing length blocks as as a punative punishment for rule infractions isn't allowed, I would guess many of our community don't see it valid to block people temporarily just because the warnings arent working out. -- bawolff On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: at at justify to doesn't is support headed? that best spend into it so an technical sure) up say

So we are going to magically assume that somehow this block is going to change mcbride's behaviour when it took a 100 message email thread before he even found out the reason he was blocked (which differs from the implied reason in the email which was sent to an email account he usually doesnt check)? -- bawolff On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: it's understand as happens when shows fully forward, the disruption, comment any wrote: that they is it ban + problem, kind it's seriously build gathering context gathering context awight(a)wikimedia.org don't the up our anyway—I've Conduct that of Oh, rules, feature) was yaron57(a)gmail.com minority as of brought out,

What I think has people talking past one another here is that the "final straw" that led to the ban wasn't a per se ban-worthy offense, *and* there is no clear standard or process for determining when past patterns of behavior can be taken into account in determining whether a given action crosses the line. In legal contexts we account for past behavior with things like repeat-offender rules/"three-strikes" rules, point systems (as with driver's licenses), and so on. Without such rules or processes in place, banning someone for conduct that is permitted of others risks at least the appearance of arbitrariness. On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:04 PM Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 15/08/18 20:50, Nuria Ruiz wrote: This makes me feel the opposite of safe, and is why I will never report anything to the committee as things stand. If someone accuses me, I have no way to defend myself. If I seek help or accuse another, I have no way to be sure my words won't be used against me, or against said other to far greater harm than I ever expected or intended. -I

Hi! In this particular case, it was based on a comment that was deleted. And of course most content in our technical spaces (those managed by WMF, not sure about Github and such) is deletable by admins. This sounds suspiciously like "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide". Which I hope everybody knows is not how it works - after all, that's why we have our privacy policies - so I assume it was not the intended meaning. We can have disagreement, and we can make mistakes, and this is why good process is important. Saying "if you're worried about good process, maybe it's because you're guilty" - that's how this comment sounded to me - is not right. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org

On 15/08/18 22:40, David Barratt wrote: A nice sentiment, but unrealistic. We come from too many backgrounds, too many cultures, make too many typos, and are sufficiently bad at communicating overall as a movement that there will be many things that require clarification. We should always be open to making these clarifications - this is the key to better communication, and thus better understanding. Only from understanding can we improve things, not just ourselves, but our processes, our work, and our movement. -I

I write all answers in one place: Brian: change mcbride's behaviour when it took a 100 message email thread before he even found out the reason he was blocked (which differs from the implied reason in the email which was sent to an email account he usually doesnt check)? That's actually an argument against making cases public. The temporarily bans and incremental steps usually work. We had cases that one warning was enough and we never got any more report about the person, we had cases that a temporarily ban was enough (and those didn't cause a +100 email thread, no one knew about them expect some admins, the reporter and the person who got banned) and it worked. I can't disclose much. The reason that took 100 emails until the user realizes is banned was because of they missed the email sent to them. It happens but not 100% of all cases. When the user found the email, they forwarded them to a public mailing list and defending themselves in public. There are ways to appeal as mentioned in the CoC, why that didn't happen? By forwarding such emails to public, they just make the tip of the iceberg public and everyone thinks "Someone got banned just for saying WTF" and with limited knowledge they can jump to conclusions or become angry. For sake of protection of the reporters, we won't show you how much is behind each and every case. People should not judge cases based on defenses of the banned person. More communication and harder job of doing so by trying to explain the rationale has been always the cost of more transparency. In English Wikipedia lots of times discussions about banning a person can be turned to a public circus making these threads like a quiet village in Alps in comparison. If you don't believe me, just search in WP:ANI. facing the same breach of the CoC you have cited, from varnent. Given that there is a narrative going around that the CoC is unfairly biased in favour of staff, would you mind sharing what deliberations took place that resulted in sactions against only one of the participants in a dispute where both participants are alleged to have committed the same fault. To be clear, im not neccesarily sugesting (nor am i neccesarily suggesting the converse) that the CoC is wrong in this - only that it seems full disclosure of the rationale seems like the only method to heal this rift that has opened up. When they see a violation of CoC, as outlined in the CoC, they need to send an email to the committee and explain the reasoning but what happened? They publicly accused the other party of violating CoC. This is not how it works. It causes more tension and ends up as really long threads. CoC can be good mediators in such cases if used. One big misconception is that lots of people think the other party reported them but lots of reports we've had so far came from by-passers and not "their enemy" and it's not to retaliate to silence their voice. I really encourage this type of behavior. If you see something is not right even if it's not related to you, stand up and report. Regarding unfair bias towards staff, it has lots of incorrect assumptions. How from one case with very limited knowledge this can be judged? As I said there is an appealing body and we trust them to be fair. Michael: straw" that led to the ban wasn't a per se ban-worthy offense, *and* there is no clear standard or process for determining when past patterns of behavior can be taken into account in determining whether a given action crosses the line. This is very subjective and can be true but making everyone a judge is not a good idea. Does everyone have read CoC fully? Did they have trainings or experience with dealing harassments? Did they have access to all of the user's history and reports made? I'm not even slightly proposing that no one should judge CoC, this is pretty dangerous and can lead to horrible things but there is a right way called appeal as outlined in the CoC to make sure correct checks and balances are in place. Isarra: too many cultures, make too many typos, and are sufficiently bad at communicating overall as a movement that there will be many things that require clarification. We should always be open to making these clarifications - this is the key to better communication, and thus better understanding. Only from understanding can we improve things, not just ourselves, but our processes, our work, and our movement. I disagree with some parts. Members of The CoCC are also from different cultures and backgrounds and they should be aware of these differences but problematic comments are in three types: 1- These are clear violation of CoC. A real world example is that you can't grope someone's private parts and then say it was a cultural difference. 2- There are cases that in the gray area but by looking at the history of the user, the pattern is obvious. I suggest reading WP:RUNAWAY. 3- It's a one time thing and it's in the gray area. The CoC can and should contact the reported person and ask for clarification. Sorry for a very late answer, all work and no play makes Amir a dull boy. Best

Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm going to respond inline: On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed, I don't doubt it. Although I would note that enwikipedia is orders of magnitude bigger, so it stands to reason that it has a magnitude more drama. Ultimately though I feel that transparency is needed to trust that the committee is acting just and wisely (Power corrupts. Power without oversight is pretty absolute, and you know what they say about absolute power). I don't believe the committee will be trusted without public oversight, and I don't think the committee can function without trust. While I agree that the committee can't act in a situation unless notified, I disagree that it can only act directly on the notification received. In fact, I would say the committee has a duty to fully investigate any conflict it involves itself in. Have you ever seen a dispute in the history of anything that only involved one party? At the bare minimum when processing a complaint, the CoC should at least ask the alleged perpetrator has anything to say for him/herself, no matter how clear cut the case appears to be. I don't know how anyone could claim justice is being done without even talking to the accused party. Given that MZMcbride claimed to initially not know what's going on, it would certainly appear that no attempt was made to investigate his side of the situation. Additionally, this seems to be a pattern as he is not the first person I have heard complain about sanctions being taken against them without any notification or other communication. To clarify, I never meant to suggest otherwise then this. If I did, I apologize. The topic of sexual assault has come up multiple times in this thread. Its a very serious crime, and perhaps has special considerations when dealing with it. However, most problematic behaviours are not sexual assault, and we should not orient all our social structures over this one particular crime as if it was the fifth horseman of the Infocalypse. Certainly the current topic that spurned this thread has nothing to do with sexual assault/harassment. In regards to WP:RUNAWAY - Perhaps there are cases where disruptive actions are difficult to spot due to various evasive patterns. Mzmcbride seems to not be one of these cases, as he is both one of the most prominent and one of the most controversial members of our community for about a decade now. I also disagree that the CoC should clarify only over 1 time things. In my mind, a users history should not be used to determine guilt (Unless perhaps the user is under some sort of formal probation). History could maybe inform what remedies are appropriate or the seriousness of the offence. But I think that each individual offence should be judged on its individual merits. Otherwise we head down the road where "bad" or "unpopular" people have a different standard of justice applied to them than the "good" people. Thank your for your well considered response. I know this can be an emotionally draining topic and I appreciate your engagement. Thanks, Brian

On 15/08/18 22:08, David Barratt wrote: One of the complaints here has consistently been that the accusations, evidence, and deliberations are all not made public, so this statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even then, we shouldn't assume every accusation is made in good faith, nor that every accusation is based on correct interpretations of events. Misunderstandings happen, and sometimes the entire problem is lack of clarity, or context. Given the lack of any public access, this becomes particularly difficult to remedy, or even identify, in any instances where it does come up. -I

Am 14.08.2018 um 09:18 schrieb Adam Wight: [Note: this is in the abstract, touching on what I feel are the concerns that several of the people involved in this thread have. I'm not commenting on the case that triggered this discussion. That was merely the trigger, it's no longer what this discussion is about.] I'm asking myself whether this is about form, or about substance. What I mean is: personal attacks are clearly not ok. Constructive criticism is ok. How about aggressive yet objective criticism? And does it make a difference what vocabulary that criticism uses? Examples: 1) "You clearly didn't read the style guide. Go do that before you waste more of our time". 2) "Go read the fucking manual"! 3) "I can't believe this still hasn't been fixed! This buck has been open for two years, it's clearly a problem for the community! Someone apparently isn't doing their job!" 4) "What the fuck? Still not fixed? What are you guys doing all day?" These are all Not Nice (tm). They are all aggressive. None of them contain a personal attack. Does it make a difference that two of them contain the word "fuck"? Is expressing anger ok, or a reason for blocking? I personally don't care much about being "nice", I don't care about vocabulary. I care much about being objective and constructive. And I think it's ok to express anger and disappointment, as long as no personal attacks are involved. Making people feel safe and welcome should be our goal, but making people feel uncomfortable is sometimes necessary if we want clear and direct communication. I personally consider it an insult to my intelligence if people wrap criticism in pretty language. Emotionally processing criticism is something adults should be able to do as a matter of course. If we don't make mistakes, we probably don't do anything worthwhile. If nobody can tell us off for making mistakes, we are missing an opportunity to learn from them. If criticism has to be formulated as suggestions, we are loosing clarity, and open up to miscommunication. So, is this about form? Or substance? Is it about how the recipient feels? About how to formulate criticism? In my mind, "don't say anything that could make anyone feel bad" cannot be the criterion. "I find your CR-1 offensive" is not something we can accommodate. What, then, shall the criterion be to avoid personal attacks and to prevent verbal abuse? -- Daniel Kinzler Principal Platform Engineer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" with absence of word "nazi" so that it still has same effect and doesn't sound dull? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Bináris <wikiposta(a)gmail.com> wrote:

But that not only does sound very dull, but it doesn't even sound like you don't like or disagree with such behaviour See the difference between these two sentences, which are trying to say same thing using your definition of "grammar nazi": * My posts are constantly checked by people who believe that my grammar and spelling should be proper everywhere possible, who keep notifying me when I make mistakes. * I am being terrorized by grammar nazis. In first sentence, half of people would just not read it because it's too long and dull and other half wouldn't care or understand the point. The second sentence, on other hand... Proper speech is often boring and ignored, which leads to desperation, which leads to insults and swear words. It's not ideal, but that's how world seems to work. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Siebrand Mazeland <siebrand(a)kitano.nl> wrote:

Petr asks: with absence of word "nazi” Interesting question (in the abstract—meaning as long as we’re not talking about Amir). There is no standard phrase that comes to mind. Tyrant and despot are too classy, authoritarian too long, stickler not pejorative enough…I’d go with bully. _____________________ Joe Matazzoni Product Manager, Collaboration Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco mobile 202.744.7910 jmatazzoni(a)wikimedia.org "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." > On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:10 AM, Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > with absence of word "nazi" so that it still has same effect and > doesn't sound dull? > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Bináris <wikiposta(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 2018-08-13 18:35 GMT+02:00 Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com>om>: >> >>> Is that >>> what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of best >>> experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis? >>> >> >> Folks, please never use the word "nazi" for people in any context except >> definitely stating they are nazis in the origonal meaning of the word. >> Neither with prefixes or suffixes or in compositions. >> I know you didn't want to say anything bad with that and many people use >> this phrase, but to call somebody *any kind of a *nazi or comparing any >> behaviour to nazis is much more abusive then to use the f word for a lot of >> people in whose personal or local history nazis appear and play a role. >> >> This is not addressed to you, Petr. This is just an example, that people >> deal with one thing and don't even notice the other one, and don't realize >> the importance of this or that. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Pedants? Prescriptivists? Etc... https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/grammar_Nazi On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, 18:10 Petr Bena, <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: