Mukunda Modell wrote:

I think you were a victim of a false-positive with the anti-vandalism tech that's been recently deployed in phabricator. Unfortunately there isn't a log entry to verify that fact because the logging function hasn't been deployed yet.

Regardless, I've re-enabled your account.

I apologize for the inconvenience, I'll make some adjustments to the filter to hopefully prevent more false positives.

Ah, okay. Thank you for the quick reply and remedy! I appreciate it.

MZMcBride

Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.

We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this clarification is very much needed.

Ah, I found the e-mail:

Subject: Temporarily ban from phabricator

Hello,

We received reports about your comments in phabricator. While we encourage criticism and productive comments to improve the software, comments like "What the fuck" do not contribute to the discussion and turns the discussion from respectful criticism to folks swearing at other folks.

We asked you to stop making such comments that do not contribute to the discussion. We have no choice to issue a temporarily ban from phabricator. We hope you notice this type of behaviour is not welcome in our technical spaces.

Please read Code of conduct in depth: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

Best

This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email address to them.

This is re: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742.

Greg Varnum created a mess, inappropriately closed a valid bug, and removed its parent task because he didn't want to even acknowledge the bug. I expressed exasperation with his actions, particularly gaslighting volunteers (cf. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090841.html ), and Greg then removed himself as the task assignee and hasn't responded on either the task or the wikimedia-l mailing list since. And there's still German text prominently and confusingly at the top of https://wikimediafoundation.org/. Amazing.

MZMcBride

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:

So are we supposed to be careful about using 'wtf' now?

I don't think saying "WTF" to someone, especially spelled out, is usually conducive to eliciting a constructive response from them. Something like "Could you please explain why you did that?" is pretty much always a better way to communicate. (This is if it's directed at their actions/code/etc., obviously, not at PHP or whatever.)

However, it is not at all clear that such a statement is against anything written in the CoC. At most it would be "offensive comments", which is extremely vague. I think it would be good if all forms of non-constructive communication *were* against the CoC -- although not necessarily dealt with by bans -- but I don't see that they are.

On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

Ah, I found the e-mail: […]

This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.

Dan

Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly? Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 14:23 Dan Garry, dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:

On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

...

Ah, I found the e-mail: […]

This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.

Dan

-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:

Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly? Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.

Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.

Dan

This is actually a rather good point, and one I would argue also shows why we need more transparency from the CoC committee in the first place - lacking that, all the community at large can really go on is what the accused provides, which does no favours toward the effectiveness of any actions taken, especially if said actions really were justified.

-I

On 08/08/18 15:26, Lucas Werkmeister wrote:

Can we please avoid jumping to conclusions like “Ladsgroup [was] enforcing the CoC out of their personal feelings” or that this was an “immediate escalation”, when the only information we have in this thread is a quoted email that the author probably never intended to be a comprehensive summary of the situation in the first place, and which was only relayed to this list through a non-neutral party?

Cheers, Lucas

Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org:

...

On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:

...

Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly? Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.

Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.

Dan

-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it been written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very discussion?). But to ban a member of the technical community from the working environment is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community, not by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc file case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where most Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this case, too. Publicity is good.

I very much agree that profanity should not be used around Wikimedia, but there's a large gap between "things we ideally wouldn't have", "things an employee of a Wikimedia institution should be fired for", and "things a volunteer contributor should be blocked for" (in that order). (The acronym "wtf" has been used 532 times on Phabricator according to search results (including some by the relevant CoCC members), and 10 times fully spelled out.)

Just to remind everyone of some background, the CoC came into existence after having a policy tag edit-warred onto it after a non-consensus-backed discussion regarding a particular section was self-closed as consensus reached for the entire document, attempting to establish an unaccountable and secretive Committee that may ban users for any of a number of extremely vaguely worded violations including "attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee", appoints its own members (none of which were community-selected), can veto any changes to the CoC, and recently claimed absolute authority over all development-oriented spaces on all Wikimedia projects (including VPT, gadget/script/module talk pages) on a "consensus" of a single user. It's quite clearly a completely illegitimate institution.

But leaving all that aside, this was a terrible decision. I recommend an immediate unblock.

-- Yair Rand

2018-08-08 13:02 GMT-04:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:

In general I would prefer to keep vulgar language out of the projects, as it doesn't bring anything positive. Research shows that swearing causes stress [1], and there are many ways of showing dissatisfaction without using coarse language.

For instance, I would appreciate if there would be more interest in using Nonviolent Communication, as it is more effective in getting the message across than with negativity. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ

Regards, Micru

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0022341

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:

...

That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it been written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very discussion?). But to ban a member of the technical community from the working

environment

...

is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community,

not

...

by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc file case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where most Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this

case,

...

too. Publicity is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On other projects, we have community-elected groups among whom we see oversight in the form of new members upon subsequent elections who can audit the backlogs, and who conduct their primary functions in the open and issue clear statements when a matter does indeed merit not discussing openly, using their discretion as to when to apply privacy and similar concerns specifically. Generally speaking, most users actually trust their discretion in those matters.

Nothing about /this/ particular issue appears to merit any such concern, and because none of the above holds here, either, I can't say I necessarily trust this committee to make that call to begin with.

-I

On 08/08/18 19:35, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

With all the clamoring for transparency, has anyone considered the privacy implications for publicly documenting every complaint against a Phabricator user? That seems like it could have just as much of a chilling effect on participation, if not more, than the idea that you can be blocked for being rude.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

...

I very much agree that profanity should not be used around Wikimedia, but there's a large gap between "things we ideally wouldn't have", "things an employee of a Wikimedia institution should be fired for", and "things a volunteer contributor should be blocked for" (in that order). (The acronym "wtf" has been used 532 times on Phabricator according to search results (including some by the relevant CoCC members), and 10 times fully spelled out.)

Just to remind everyone of some background, the CoC came into existence after having a policy tag edit-warred onto it after a non-consensus-backed discussion regarding a particular section was self-closed as consensus reached for the entire document, attempting to establish an unaccountable and secretive Committee that may ban users for any of a number of extremely vaguely worded violations including "attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee", appoints its own members (none of which were community-selected), can veto any changes to the CoC, and recently claimed absolute authority over all development-oriented spaces on all Wikimedia projects (including VPT, gadget/script/module talk pages) on a "consensus" of a single user. It's quite clearly a completely illegitimate institution.

But leaving all that aside, this was a terrible decision. I recommend an immediate unblock.

-- Yair Rand

2018-08-08 13:02 GMT-04:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:

...

In general I would prefer to keep vulgar language out of the projects, as it doesn't bring anything positive. Research shows that swearing causes stress [1], and there are many ways

of

...

showing dissatisfaction without using coarse language.

For instance, I would appreciate if there would be more interest in using Nonviolent Communication, as it is more effective in getting the message across than with negativity. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ

Regards, Micru

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0022341

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:

...

That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended

to

...

...

an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it

been

...

...

written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very

discussion?).

...

...

But to ban a member of the technical community from the working

environment

...

is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community,

not

...

by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc

file

...

...

case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where

most

...

...

Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this

case,

...

too. Publicity is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Nope! But this just seems /worse/ in practice.

-I

On 08/08/18 20:12, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

Are you suggesting that ArbCom does a good job of maintaining a collegial, harassment-free environment on English Wikipedia? Just wanted to double-check ;)

...

On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

On other projects, we have community-elected groups among whom we see oversight in the form of new members upon subsequent elections who can audit the backlogs, and who conduct their primary functions in the open and issue clear statements when a matter does indeed merit not discussing openly, using their discretion as to when to apply privacy and similar concerns specifically. Generally speaking, most users actually trust their discretion in those matters.

Nothing about /this/ particular issue appears to merit any such concern, and because none of the above holds here, either, I can't say I necessarily trust this committee to make that call to begin with.

-I

...

On 08/08/18 19:35, Ryan Kaldari wrote: With all the clamoring for transparency, has anyone considered the privacy implications for publicly documenting every complaint against a Phabricator user? That seems like it could have just as much of a chilling effect on participation, if not more, than the idea that you can be blocked for being rude.

...

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

I very much agree that profanity should not be used around Wikimedia, but there's a large gap between "things we ideally wouldn't have", "things an employee of a Wikimedia institution should be fired for", and "things a volunteer contributor should be blocked for" (in that order). (The acronym "wtf" has been used 532 times on Phabricator according to search results (including some by the relevant CoCC members), and 10 times fully spelled out.)

Just to remind everyone of some background, the CoC came into existence after having a policy tag edit-warred onto it after a non-consensus-backed discussion regarding a particular section was self-closed as consensus reached for the entire document, attempting to establish an unaccountable and secretive Committee that may ban users for any of a number of extremely vaguely worded violations including "attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee", appoints its own members (none of which were community-selected), can veto any changes to the CoC, and recently claimed absolute authority over all development-oriented spaces on all Wikimedia projects (including VPT, gadget/script/module talk pages) on a "consensus" of a single user. It's quite clearly a completely illegitimate institution.

But leaving all that aside, this was a terrible decision. I recommend an immediate unblock.

-- Yair Rand

2018-08-08 13:02 GMT-04:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:

...

In general I would prefer to keep vulgar language out of the projects, as it doesn't bring anything positive. Research shows that swearing causes stress [1], and there are many ways

of

...

showing dissatisfaction without using coarse language.

For instance, I would appreciate if there would be more interest in using Nonviolent Communication, as it is more effective in getting the message across than with negativity. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ

Regards, Micru

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0022341

...

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:

That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended

to

...

...

an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it

been

...

...

written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very

discussion?).

...

...

But to ban a member of the technical community from the working

environment

...

is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community,

not

...

by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc

file

...

...

case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where

most

...

...

Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this

case,

...

too. Publicity is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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

---

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

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

If maximizing effectiveness was the only concern, we could just block all the users.

-- Brian

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:

Are you suggesting that ArbCom does a good job of maintaining a collegial, harassment-free environment on English Wikipedia? Just wanted to double-check ;)

...

On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

On other projects, we have community-elected groups among whom we see oversight in the form of new members upon subsequent elections who can audit the backlogs, and who conduct their primary functions in the open and issue clear statements when a matter does indeed merit not discussing openly, using their discretion as to when to apply privacy and similar concerns specifically. Generally speaking, most users actually trust their discretion in those matters.

Nothing about /this/ particular issue appears to merit any such concern, and because none of the above holds here, either, I can't say I necessarily trust this committee to make that call to begin with.

-I

...

On 08/08/18 19:35, Ryan Kaldari wrote: With all the clamoring for transparency, has anyone considered the privacy implications for publicly documenting every complaint against a Phabricator user? That seems like it could have just as much of a chilling effect on participation, if not more, than the idea that you can be blocked for being rude.

...

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:

I very much agree that profanity should not be used around Wikimedia, but there's a large gap between "things we ideally wouldn't have", "things an employee of a Wikimedia institution should be fired for", and "things a volunteer contributor should be blocked for" (in that order). (The acronym "wtf" has been used 532 times on Phabricator according to search results (including some by the relevant CoCC members), and 10 times fully spelled out.)

Just to remind everyone of some background, the CoC came into existence after having a policy tag edit-warred onto it after a non-consensus-backed discussion regarding a particular section was self-closed as consensus reached for the entire document, attempting to establish an unaccountable and secretive Committee that may ban users for any of a number of extremely vaguely worded violations including "attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee", appoints its own members (none of which were community-selected), can veto any changes to the CoC, and recently claimed absolute authority over all development-oriented spaces on all Wikimedia projects (including VPT, gadget/script/module talk pages) on a "consensus" of a single user. It's quite clearly a completely illegitimate institution.

But leaving all that aside, this was a terrible decision. I recommend an immediate unblock.

-- Yair Rand

2018-08-08 13:02 GMT-04:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:

...

In general I would prefer to keep vulgar language out of the projects, as it doesn't bring anything positive. Research shows that swearing causes stress [1], and there are many ways

of

...

showing dissatisfaction without using coarse language.

For instance, I would appreciate if there would be more interest in using Nonviolent Communication, as it is more effective in getting the message across than with negativity. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ

Regards, Micru

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0022341

...

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:

That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended

to

...

...

an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it

been

...

...

written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very

discussion?).

...

...

But to ban a member of the technical community from the working

environment

...

is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community,

not

...

by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc

file

...

...

case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where

most

...

...

Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this

case,

...

too. Publicity is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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

---

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

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

2018-08-08 22:51 GMT+02:00 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:

2018-08-08 18:53 GMT+03:00 Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com:

...

This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to an international community.

FWIW, the CoC itself is quite neutral and contains (at least in my view) no American specificities, only general principles that most developers can identify with. Also, I would note that the majority of the current committee members are *not* US-based (from what I can tell) and that there is a good gender balance, so it's hard to argue it could get more diverse than that.

Well, perhaps I wasn't accurate enough. What I meant that the whole *need* of such paper as a CoC is in my mind related to political correctness and other Western trends. I was not a fan of the idea when people just said that a CoC would be constructed becuase it is so neccessary instead of such simple rules of normality like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk. Either somebody understand his sentence or any kind of detailed rules and laws of how not to be a jerk will be useless for him. Anyway, we are over it, and this is not worth too many word already, I just wanted to higlight this connection and think out of the box for a moment.. A detailed philosophical and cultural discuss is really not a Wikitech topic.

That, together with the history of MZMcBride should make us give credit to the committee (and question some of our own stereotypes ;))

I am not familiar with his history, so I have no opinion here.

Hi!

This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.

Very well may be so, but I think this case has something that is, IMHO, very on-topic for this mailing list, as a venue to discuss running this technical project. I think regardless of the merits of the particular CoCC decision, there's something wrong in how it happened. Namely:

1. The account was disabled without any indication (except the email to the person owning it, which is also rather easy to miss - not the admin's fault, but read on) of what and why happened, as far as I could see. Note that Phabricator is a collaborative space, and disabling an account may influence everybody who may have been working with the person, and even everybody that working on a ticket that this person commented once. If they submitted a bug and I want to verify with them and the account is disabled - what do I do? People are left guessing - did something happen? Did his user leave the project? Was it something they said? Something I said? Some bug? Admin action? What is going on? There's no explanation, there's no permanent public record, and no way to figure out what it is.

What I would propose to improve this is on each such action, to have permanent public record, in a known place, that specifies: a. What action it was (ban, temporary ban - with duration, etc.) b. Who decided on that action and who implemented it, the latter - to be sure if somebody thinks it's a bug or mistake, they can ask "did you really mean to ban X" instead of being in unpleasant and potentially embarrassing position of trying to guess what happened with no information. c. Why this action was taken - if sensitive details involved, omitting them, but providing enough context to understand what happened, e.g. "Banned X for repeated comments in conflict with CoC, which we had to delete, e.g. [link], [link] and [link]" or "Permanently banned Y for conduct unwelcome in Wikimedia spaces", if revealing any more details would hurt people. It doesn't have to be 100% detail, but it has to be something more that people quietly disappearing.

Establishing such a place and maintaining this record should be one of the things that CoCC does.

2. There seems to be no clearly defined venue to discuss and form consensus about such actions. As it must be clear now, such venue is required, and if it is not provided, the first venue that looks suitable for it will be roped in. To much annoyance of the people that wanted to use that venue for other things.

I would propose to fix it by providing such venue, and clearly specifying it in the same place where the action is described, as per above. Again, establishing and advertising such place should be something that CoCC does.

It is clear to me - and I think to anybody seeing the volume of discussion this generated - that we need improvement here. We can do better and we should.

If we really feel people trying to interact with a banned users should find out the user is banned, it could be displayed in their Phabricator profile or in the Phabricator calendar (that results in a little notice icon everywhere the username is used), although I'd hope the banned person can opt out of that happening as it feels somewhat stigmatizing.

It appears that this is already (somewhat) the case: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/MZMcBride/

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

1. The account was disabled without any indication (except the email to

the person owning it, which is also rather easy to miss - not the admin's fault, but read on) of what and why happened, as far as I could see. Note that Phabricator is a collaborative space, and disabling an account may influence everybody who may have been working with the person, and even everybody that working on a ticket that this person commented once. If they submitted a bug and I want to verify with them and the account is disabled - what do I do? People are left guessing - did something happen? Did his user leave the project? Was it something they said? Something I said? Some bug? Admin action? What is going on? There's no explanation, there's no permanent public record, and no way to figure out what it is.

What I would propose to improve this is on each such action, to have permanent public record, in a known place, that specifies: a. What action it was (ban, temporary ban - with duration, etc.) b. Who decided on that action and who implemented it, the latter - to be sure if somebody thinks it's a bug or mistake, they can ask "did you really mean to ban X" instead of being in unpleasant and potentially embarrassing position of trying to guess what happened with no

information.

...

c. Why this action was taken - if sensitive details involved, omitting them, but providing enough context to understand what happened, e.g. "Banned X for repeated comments in conflict with CoC, which we had to delete, e.g. [link], [link] and [link]" or "Permanently banned Y for conduct unwelcome in Wikimedia spaces", if revealing any more details would hurt people.

That proposed solution does not solve the problem you are proposing it for. If a person I'm interacting with on Phabricator or Gerrit disappears, I'm not going to look through CoC ban records, even if I know such a thing exists (which most people wouldn't, even if it's well-publicized). I'll just assume they are busy or sick or something.

If we really feel people trying to interact with a banned users should find out the user is banned, it could be displayed in their Phabricator profile or in the Phabricator calendar (that results in a little notice icon everywhere the username is used), although I'd hope the banned person can opt out of that happening as it feels somewhat stigmatizing.

...

2. There seems to be no clearly defined venue to discuss and form

consensus about such actions. As it must be clear now, such venue is required, and if it is not provided, the first venue that looks suitable for it will be roped in. To much annoyance of the people that wanted to use that venue for other things.

I doubt that would have much effect - the person who is objecting about a CoC action benefits from using the forum that grabs the most attention, even if there's a more appropriate one. People who are considerate enough not to do that are typically not the ones who end up getting banned. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Banning of known contributors is not an issue to be hidden away. Sadly it becomes a technical issue when contributors are being banned, as their work and what they did does effect others. The issue cannot be seperated. Looking through their history, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/MZMcBride/ As far as I can tell this is admin overreach, the kind that mediawiki is well known for in the development community. I see a lot of productivity and focus upon issues, not any attacking of others. I would have hoped from previous events that the environment would have gotten better, but yet again I see a CoC being used as an excuse for over sensitivity and censorship of discussion. The original actions MZM was responding to are being ignored, while he is being banned for his response to it, which doesn't actually attack anyone at all. The message of a CoC is supposed to be one of 'be nice and have good discussions and do the right thing'. Which is being violated by the very enforcers of it. If known contributors are banned for simply saying 'WTF', then Ladsgroup also should be banned for enforcing the CoC out of their personal feelings, and not one of doing the right thing. The correct response to unproductive comments is to simply delete them, and/or message the author about it. If they're actually spamming them, then that's a spam issue not a CoC issue. If they attack someone, then that's a CoC issue. I don't see that here.

I find it very counter productive to any public organization to hide way bans and reasons for them if the actions the user did was public. That leaves the decisions in the dark to everyone else. This is a development space, and I expect far better from those who have power of it.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:11 AM Mukunda Modell mmodell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Do you have any suggestions of what would be a more appropriate forum?

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:23 AM Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

...

Ah, I found the e-mail: […]

This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.

Dan

-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:53 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

...

I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.

We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this clarification is very much needed.

Ah, I found the e-mail:

...

Subject: Temporarily ban from phabricator

Hello,

We received reports about your comments in phabricator. While we encourage criticism and productive comments to improve the software, comments like "What the fuck" do not contribute to the discussion and turns the discussion from respectful criticism to folks swearing at other folks.

We asked you to stop making such comments that do not contribute to the discussion. We have no choice to issue a temporarily ban from phabricator. We hope you notice this type of behaviour is not welcome in our technical spaces.

Please read Code of conduct in depth: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

Best

This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email address to them.

This is re: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742.

Greg Varnum created a mess, inappropriately closed a valid bug, and removed its parent task because he didn't want to even acknowledge the bug. I expressed exasperation with his actions, particularly gaslighting volunteers (cf. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090841.html ), and Greg then removed himself as the task assignee and hasn't responded on either the task or the wikimedia-l mailing list since. And there's still German text prominently and confusingly at the top of https://wikimediafoundation.org/. Amazing.

MZMcBride

So MZMcBride is temporarily banned for an unspecified amount of time. I have some concerns: a) The fact all these are secret is a recipe for FUD and misunderstandings. From accusations of partiality of the committee to people being unblocked because people think its an accident, are all natural consequences of things being secret. I think this is bound to create a negative environment in the long term. b) What is the point of blocking him temporarily and not telling him how long he's banned for. That's just silly. c) While I agree that writing wtf can be inappropriate, if the CoC is going to weigh in to the fray it should fully enforce things on both sides. MZMcbride (and any other individual contributor) is at a power disadvantage here relative to how the foundation is an organized group, and while I can't condone the form of how he expressed his concerns, he's not wrong that the comments on the bug are poorly communicated. The bug report seems legit (I've heard many people complain that the issue is confusing and looks like its a mistake). First the bug is closed as being a feature not a bug (Although its still unclear what exactly the aim is). Then the bug is re-closed because the site is "soft-launched" (I guess that means beta) and the issue will be fixed later, although that seems kind of contradictory with the first close reason. This is all very confusing and rather dismissive of legitimate concerns. I think that if MZMcbride is to be censored (in the sense of being condemned), than the code of conduct committee should also attempt to enforce clear communication on this task to be fair to the fact that some parties in this dispute are at a power disadvantage.

-- Brian

Taking my coc hat off, I'm not representing the committee at all. Several things have been misunderstood imo. I want to address them. 1) The use of profanity is not prohibited by the COC, using them against others or for unconstructive reasons is. If you see the whole discussion, you could clearly see the comment is not made to move discussion forward. These are clear case of disruptive actions. 1.1) the response to these violations depends on the user, very similar to what Wikipedia does. If it was the first case reported about Mz, they wouldn't get this ban. 2) the duration of block which is for one week was determined and communicated in the email. You can check the email as it's public now. 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those too? And if not, where and who supposed to draw the line between public and non-public cases? I'm very much for more transparency but if we don't iron things out before implementing them, it will end up as a disaster.

Sent on my phone, on a vacation. Best On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 21:49 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:

...

So MZMcBride is temporarily banned for an unspecified amount of time. I have some concerns: a) The fact all these are secret is a recipe for FUD and misunderstandings. From accusations of partiality of the committee to people being unblocked because people think its an accident, are all natural consequences of things being secret. I think this is bound to create a negative environment in the long term.

This.

...

b) What is the point of blocking him temporarily and not telling him how long he's banned for. That's just silly.

I'm going to quote someone out of context here, but I think it establishes the point I'd like to make:

"temporary solutions have a terrible habit of becoming permanent, around here"

-Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Errata: make cases possible --> make cases public whenever possible Gmail has tricked on me.

2018-08-08 22:46 GMT+02:00 Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com:

2018-08-08 22:29 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com:

...

3. not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't

clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those too?

Nope.

...

And if not, where and who supposed to draw the line between public and non-public cases?

If a committe is able to judge cases, it is also able to draw this line

and make cases possible. As time goes by and they have more experience, there will be a standard by practice, perhaps a written standard.

Er, apologies for my previous email, I may have gone a bit overboard with it. Is it generally improper to blame the cold medicine, in such cases, bow out, and generally just go straight to bed? Because I blame the cold medicine.

Again, sorry about that.

-I

2018-08-08 23:29 GMT+03:00 Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com:

Taking my coc hat off, I'm not representing the committee at all. Several things have been misunderstood imo. I want to address them.

1. The use of profanity is not prohibited by the COC, using them against

others or for unconstructive reasons is. If you see the whole discussion, you could clearly see the comment is not made to move discussion forward. These are clear case of disruptive actions. 1.1) the response to these violations depends on the user, very similar to what Wikipedia does. If it was the first case reported about Mz, they wouldn't get this ban. 2) the duration of block which is for one week was determined and communicated in the email. You can check the email as it's public now.

Unless you're talking about another mail than the one published by MZMcBride, you did not mention the duration. I'm assuming this was an omission from your part (AGF) but you should consider having email templates or some other mean of avoiding such mistakes in the future.

3. not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't

clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those too? And if not, where and who supposed to draw the line between public and non-public cases? I'm very much for more transparency but if we don't iron things out before implementing them, it will end up as a disaster.

There is a clear line that can be established: public comment (wiki/phabricator/etc) => public case. Also, you don't have to go into details, just mentioning that someone was banned from the Wikimedia events for sexual harassments seems enough to me.

Reversely, if you don't publish this data, how are other event organizers going to enforce the ban? When Austria organized the Wikimedia hackathon, we had several pre-hackathons organized in several CEE countries. If these would happen today, they would be bound by the CoC, but the organizers would have no way to determine if a user should be banned or not.

Strainu

Am Do., 9. Aug. 2018 um 13:50 Uhr schrieb Aryeh Gregor ayg@aryeh.name:

To begin with, punishment of any infraction that occurred in a publicly-accessible forum such as Phabricator can be public. If the infraction itself can remain public, the punishment for it can also. That seems like a good starting point.

This argument doesn’t work at all, IMHO. Suppose I revealed the real name of an anonymous contributor in a Phabricator comment (accidentally or as deliberate doxxing) – just because I thought that this comment could be public surely doesn’t mean that it should stay public, or that the subsequent interaction with the CoCC should be public.

Of course, I’m not saying that what happened here was equivalent to doxxing – I just don’t think it at all follows that the punishment should be public just because the infraction was.

Cheers, Lucas

Bringing back a dispute from 2012 over a ban in 2018 is very reaching. Punishment should have been applied for that case at that time, not retroactively applied later on. If 'unbelievable anonymous hate mail' is true, then I don't see why they shouldn't have been banned at that time. However the circumstances in this case I haven't seen this behavior proved recently as the cause for the CoC ban.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:32 PM Ori Livneh ori.livneh@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:48 PM bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:

...

MZMcbride (and any other individual contributor) is at a power disadvantage here relative to how the foundation is an organized group

Have you *been* on the receiving end of an MZMcBride diatribe? I was, when barely two months into my role as a software engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation (and newly transplanted in the Bay Area), MZMcBride wrote a Signpost op-ed < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed

...

centered around an inconsiderate remark I made on a bug that I closed as WONTFIX. The responses to that included on-wiki comments telling me to go fuck myself < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost...

...

,

calls for my immediate resignation, and unbelievably vicious anonymous hate-mail. My mental state after that was bordering on suicidal.

I hope that you are struck by the parallels between that affair back in 2012 and the one we are presently discussing. The germ-cell of both cases was a legitimate grievance about Foundation engineers being dismissive toward a bug report. MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how to use his considerable social clout to draw attention to them, and then use words as a kind of lightning-rod for stoking outrage and focusing it on particular targets. I don't know why he does it and I won't speculate, but I am convinced he knows exactly what he is doing. How could he not? This has been going on for nearly a decade.

When I saw MZMcBride's "what the fuck" I *instantly* knew what was coming. After it happens to you, you never forget the sensation of instant regret and absolute panic as the Eye of Sauron fixates on you. It is a *miserable* experience and I understand completely why the CoC might feel compelled to intervene. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Ori Livneh wrote:

MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how to use his considerable social clout to draw attention to them, and then use words as a kind of lightning-rod for stoking outrage and focusing it on particular targets.

I'm going to paraphrase what you're writing here: I spend some of my accumulated social capital calling out or highlighting abuses by and corruption within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. And you think that's _bad_?

MZMcBride

While what are we arguing then? I think i have lost track.

-- brian

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:

It's possible to highlight abuses while still being respectful and collegial. No one is seriously arguing that criticism should be banned (or the word "fuck").

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:50 PM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

...

Ori Livneh wrote:

...

MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how to use

his

...

...

considerable social clout to draw attention to them, and then use words as a kind of lightning-rod for stoking outrage and focusing it on particular targets.

I'm going to paraphrase what you're writing here: I spend some of my accumulated social capital calling out or highlighting abuses by and corruption within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. And you think that's _bad_?

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

And as was already pointed out, the word "fuck" has appeared over 500 times in Phabricator discussions without issue. If you use the word "fuck" to be hostile, that's still being hostile. The fact that it's an expletive is what makes it effective at conveying hostility. Arguing that that's a ban against the word "fuck" is a straw man.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

Ryan Kaldari wrote:

...

It's possible to highlight abuses while still being respectful and collegial. No one is seriously arguing that criticism should be banned (or the word "fuck").

Are you sure about that? I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ arguing that it's the use of the word "fuck" that was problematic here. If I had written "Why did you do that?!" instead of "What the fuck.", do you think I would have had my Phabricator account disabled for a week?

As Alex asks on this mailing list: is using the abbreviated "wtf" form now considered a formal offense in tasks and commits? I genuinely do not know.

MZMcBride

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ arguing that it's the use of the word "fuck" that was problematic here.

This is disingenuous, MZMcBride. In the "New Wikimedia Foundation has soft launched!" thread, you also wrote:

I think this type of behavior by the communications department is really

inappropriate, unbecoming, and inconsistent with Wikimedia's values. [....]

Ah, I see now. This is just some cruel waste of staff and volunteer time [

....]

You ask for people to point out issues, even providing a link to

Phabricator Maniphest, and then gaslight them by closing the tasks and telling them that the very obvious bug is intentional.

Apparently, that went on and was even escalated in the bug tracker, in response to what looks like otherwise normal and harmless back-and-forth.

MZ, hopefully you recognize this is an abusive way to treat other people. Silencing anyone is rarely appropriate, but your behavior in this earlier thread was gross enough that I decided against participating. In fact, I had my own concerns about the new WMF site but you had already created a toxic dynamic, effectively losing me (and undoubtedly others) as an ally in that discussion.

That seems like exactly the sort of thing the Code of Conduct exists to prevent, so I agree with their actions in silencing you in order to make space for other voices.

Thank you for your energy and insights, and I hope we can work together to root out the bad decisions and corruption, without this nonsense of having to bail you out of Phabricator jail every few months.

-Adam Wight

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:08 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

The wikimedia-l mailing list is very specifically not within the purview of the mediawiki.org "Code of Conduct" or its associated committee.

CoC very explicitly states that it applies to "technical mailing lists https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview#MediaWiki_and_technical ".

I'd like to echo/reinforce Adam's conclusion:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Adam Wight awight@wikimedia.org wrote:

Thank you for your energy and insights, and I hope we can work together to root out the bad decisions and corruption, without this nonsense of having to bail you out of Phabricator jail every few months.

FWIW, I value the "loyal opposition" in open source projects as a healthy counterweight. I have worked with other open source projects in the past where the "loyal opposition" proved to outlast the original project in dedication to the shared cause.

I also care deeply about preventing harassment of our community. It is a hard line to draw beween "difficult truths" and "deliberately hurtful". "Assume good faith" is our mantra to try to concentrate on the "truth" instead of the "difficult" part, but it's a never-ending challenge to get the balance right.

MZ is a canary in our coal mine, in two ways. On one hand MZ continually challenges us to revisit our assumptions and do better in our work. This is hard but terribly useful.

On the other hand, MZ tests and probes our community guidelines. We need to ensure they are well calibrated to protect the community from harm. And I'm not going to minimize the harm that careless criticism can do, especially to new contributors or soft voices. I don't think a temporary ban in this case is outrageous (although I echo Chad's concern), and I don't think that close scrutiny of MZ's words is unreasonable. I think there are many measures we can take to listen carefully to MZ without allowing MZ's actions to effect harm, and we should continue to do them.

I hope that we will continue to do the difficult balancing work, and not fall into the easy extremes. We must not ignore difficult truths, though it is easy to do so if the messenger is unappealing. But we also must not assume that because the criticism is legit the presentation is ipso facto acceptable. --scott, speaking for myself only

Hello everyone,

I am also putting off my hat as someone in the CoC committee and not speaking for the committee but for myself. There are a few points I would like you to consider. First of all, we are volunteers in the committee as well. I do this in my free time as much as most of the people enraged in this thread. And I would appreciate some consideration for this. I care for our community having a welcoming atmosphere for newcomers and long-time volunteers. That's the main reason I spend evenings reading and evaluating reports. Therefore, I do not appreciate the picking of people out of the committee. If Ladsgroup enacts the common decisions of the committee, there might be criticism on this decision, but not on the person.

I understand the wish for a more transparent process. (What a good thing there is the possibility to suggest amendments to the CoC!) But I would like you to consider the following: Someone, who was warned, or even blocked, might change their behavior. Should we still keep a public list of all people that ever had contact with the CoC committee? It seems to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If the block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might be hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public of everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people reporting, but also the reported.

To the incident discussed in the thread, I would like to give to consider, that we should aim for a atmosphere where people speak freely- without being afraid of insult. Especially for the newcomer in the community. I think Ladsgroup summarized it quite well earlier.

On 9 August 2018 at 12:55, Aryeh Gregor ayg@aryeh.name wrote:

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:13 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:

...

Are you sure about that? I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ arguing that it's the use of the word "fuck" that was problematic here.

If

...

I had written "Why did you do that?!" instead of "What the fuck.", do you think I would have had my Phabricator account disabled for a week?

As Alex asks on this mailing list: is using the abbreviated "wtf" form

now

...

considered a formal offense in tasks and commits? I genuinely do not

know.

The main problem here that needs to be solved is communicating what the problem was in a manner that is clear to the parties whom the CoC committee seeks to deter. A one-week ban is not going to help anything if the object of the ban doesn't understand what about his behavior elicited the ban.

From my experience in this type of thing, some people don't understand what is meant by non-constructive forms of communication, and don't know what types of statements will cause the person they're speaking to to be upset and angry, nor how to rephrase them in a constructive fashion. This is something that takes quite a lot of practice, and that fact might not be apparent to those who are naturally more sensitive. It's also something that comes naturally to someone who's in a good mood and favorably disposed to the one they're speaking to, and can be very difficult for the same person when he's angry.

Perhaps a member of the CoC committee should go over the scenario with MZMcBride and discuss with him what alternative ways he should have taken to address the problem, and what exactly the problem was with how he did it.

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

So basically your're saying that the wiki way of doing things, were blocks and bans are public and often contain the offending diff, is bad and should not be followed. Is the CoC committee really the venue where such a decision should be made? Shouldn't the wiki way be the default *unless* the community decided otherwise?

I don't think the "wiki way" is the gold standard of dealing with harassment and toxic behavior by any stretch of the imagination.

Although, I do hope that one day, it is.

However, there will have to be a significant number of major changes before that can be a reality.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:56 AM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:

2018-08-09 15:12 GMT+03:00 Lucie Kaffee lucie.kaffee@gmail.com:

...

I understand the wish for a more transparent process. (What a good thing there is the possibility to suggest amendments to the CoC!) But I would like you to consider the following: Someone, who was warned,

or

...

even blocked, might change their behavior. Should we still keep a public list of all people that ever had contact with the CoC committee? It seems to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If

the

...

block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might be hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public of everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people

reporting,

...

but also the reported.

So basically your're saying that the wiki way of doing things, were blocks and bans are public and often contain the offending diff, is bad and should not be followed. Is the CoC committee really the venue where such a decision should be made? Shouldn't the wiki way be the default *unless* the community decided otherwise?

Strainu

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

I don't yet. :)

But please follow our work on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/2660/ your participation and feedback would be awesome!

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM David Barratt dbarratt@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

However, there will have to be a significant number of major changes

before

...

that can be a reality.

Which kind of changes? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

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

Hi!

to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If the block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might be hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public of everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people reporting, but also the reported.

You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but should expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but still not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say public record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging the record is fine.

An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted in none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us here in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for seeking help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. 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.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:

Hi everyone,

I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a remote mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw this today:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege it is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real, that is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of ours. We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, strive to bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours. Sometimes we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other when we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful word. The CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an open, welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s continue refining it and let’s get back to work.

Warmly,

Victoria

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion

...

On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi!

...

to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If the block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might be hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public of everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people reporting, but also the reported.

You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but should expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but still not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say public record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging the record is fine.

-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org

---

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

It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:

I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called a "lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not be missed.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted in none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us here in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for seeking help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. 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.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a remote

mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw this today:

...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

...

This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege it

is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real, that is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of ours. We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, strive to bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours. Sometimes we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other when we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful word. The CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an open, welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s continue refining it and let’s get back to work.

...

Warmly,

Victoria

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion%3E

...

...

On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org

wrote:

...

...

Hi!

...

to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If

the

...

...

...

block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might

be

...

...

...

hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public

of

...

...

...

everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people

reporting,

...

...

...

but also the reported.

You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but should expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but still not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say public record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging the record is fine.

-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org

---

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

---

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

On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote:

...

yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future.

Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an incident that needs to be avoided in the future.

To clarify, the incident I was referring to was the unclear CoCC action taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email thread.

We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months with yet another incident which cannot be explained.

-I

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:

...

I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called a "lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not be missed.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted in none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us here in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for seeking help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. 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.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a remote

mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw

this

...

...

today:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

...

...

<

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

...

...

...

This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege it

is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real,

that

...

...

is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of

ours.

...

...

We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, strive

to

...

...

bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours.

Sometimes

...

...

we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we

hold

...

...

ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other

when

...

...

we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful word.

The

...

...

CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an open, welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s continue refining it and let’s get back to work.

...

Warmly,

Victoria

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion%3E

...

...

On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org

wrote:

...

...

Hi!

> to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list.

If

...

...

the

...

...

> block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might

be

...

...

> hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public

of

...

...

> everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people

reporting,

...

...

> but also the reported. You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but

should

...

...

...

...

expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but

still

...

...

...

...

not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say public record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging the record is fine.

-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org

---

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

---

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

---

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

"We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months with yet another incident which cannot be explained."

On 15/08/18 23:08, David Barratt wrote:

...

the unclear CoCC action

Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a better way to ask would be: What do you gain from getting more clarity?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:58 PM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote:

...

...

yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like

this

...

...

in the future.

Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an incident that needs to be avoided in the future.

To clarify, the incident I was referring to was the unclear CoCC action taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email thread.

We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months with yet another incident which cannot be explained.

-I

...

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:

...

I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called

a

...

...

...

"lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not

be

...

...

...

missed.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:

...

An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted

in

...

...

...

...

none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us

here

...

...

...

...

in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for

seeking

...

...

...

...

help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. 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.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a

remote

...

...

...

...

mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw

this

...

...

today:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

...

...

...

...

<

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

...

...

...

...

> This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege

it

...

...

...

...

is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real,

that

...

...

is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of

ours.

...

...

We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike,

strive

...

...

to

...

...

bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours.

Sometimes

...

...

we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we

hold

...

...

ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other

when

...

...

we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful

word.

...

...

The

...

...

CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an

open,

...

...

...

...

welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s continue refining it and let’s get back to work. > Warmly, > > Victoria > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion%3E >> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list.

If

...

...

the >>> block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it

might

...

...

...

...

be >>> hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog

public

...

...

...

...

of >>> everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people reporting, >>> but also the reported. >> You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but

should

...

...

>> expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better >> (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but

still

...

...

>> not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say

public

...

...

...

...

>> record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging

the

...

...

...

...

>> record is fine. >> >> -- >> Stas Malyshev >> smalyshev@wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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

---

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

---

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

On 08/09/2018 04:55 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

The main problem here that needs to be solved is communicating what the problem was in a manner that is clear to the parties whom the CoC committee seeks to deter. A one-week ban is not going to help anything if the object of the ban doesn't understand what about his behavior elicited the ban.

This. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive[1]. If after a week is up, and the subject doesn't understand the problematic behavior, or has no intentions of fixing their behavior, then we're just going to find ourselves in another wikitech-l thread about the same issues a few months later. And I'd rather we not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be _preventative

- -- Legoktm

Thanks Amir and MZMcBride for disclosing the action.

A volunteer has been punished for speaking up in defense of fellow volunteer and paid contributors, whose contribution was being sidelined and suffocated by people "in charge" of the specific space, i.e. the people they were doing their best to help.

The message which was sanctioned was even of an especially thoughtful kind, in my opinion, because it didn't attempt to submerge the other users with walls of text, politically correct tirades or otherwise charged statements. It was merely a heartfelt interjection to help people stop, reconsider their actions and self-improve without the need of lectures. Was this peculiar effort at constructive facilitation considered? If not, what alternatives or constructive suggestions were provided?

After several negative examples discussed in the last few months on this list,* this action conclusively proves in my eyes the failure of the Code of conduct to be a positive force for our community, at least sso far and in the present conditions.

The committee needs to immediately resign or be disbanded, and be reformed on a more solid basis.

Federico

(*) And not a single disclosed positive action, as far as I know. But it might have been lost due to the lack of a transparency report. If one was released or is upcoming, sorry; I'll revise my conclusions accordingly.

2018-08-08 21:42 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:

The message which was sanctioned was even of an especially thoughtful kind, in my opinion, because it didn't attempt to submerge the other users with walls of text, politically correct tirades or otherwise charged statements. It was merely a heartfelt interjection to help people stop, reconsider their actions and self-improve without the need of lectures. Was this peculiar effort at constructive facilitation considered? If not, what alternatives or constructive suggestions were provided?

No, it was not thoughtful. What actually happened is that the other users are now submerged with dozens of emails analyzing that interjection. Sure, it's pretty easy to ignore this thread or even mute it in one's email reader, but one could just as well ignore that bug report. So no, it's not thoughtful. It's provocative, unnecessary, and nonconstructive.

Using the f-word shouldn't be fully banned, but it should be obvious that it is not always OK. Every case of using such language is supposed to trigger a consideration: "Is it OK to use it now?". This should be common sense, but apparently it isn't, so it's good to have a CoC to encourage people to be considerate. And it's good to enforce the CoC when necessary.

The fact that the f-word was used elsewhere in the code and on Phabricator is not an excuse. This is also what the well-known English Wikipedia essay "Other stuff exists"[1] is about: by itself, precedent is not justification. In this case it was not OK. It often happens that a bug that shouldn't have been closed is closed. When one thinks that this happened, one can reopen it with a constructive explanation. It doesn't have to be a wall of text, but it really shouldn't be an f-word.

Can the process around the CoC be better? Probably. Could the process around deploying the new WMF website be better? Definitely.

Is it OK to use f-words to complain about it? Absolutely not. It's not friendly, it's not thoughtful, it's not funny, it's not constructive.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2018-08-09 12:10 GMT+03:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:

No Amir, you cannot build a logical post-hoc rationale for this block for the debatably single inappropriate use of WTF, if it hangs on cherry picking an essay from the English Wikipedia as "positive evidence", while choosing to ignore "negative evidence" published at the same place, such as a WMF Trustee using "fucking bullshit", along with prior precedent of justifying far more vulgar language in on-wiki debate.

... And these are bad examples that shouldn't be followed, and Mr Wales was widely criticized for that. Would it be appropriate to ban him? Maybe.

But giving an example of a powerful leader that did a bad thing as justification for doing the bad thing again doesn't sound like the right thing to do if we agree that the thing is, indeed, bad. And it is.

After several negative examples discussed in the last few months on this

list,* this action conclusively proves in my eyes the failure of the Code of conduct to be a positive force for our community, at least so far >and in the present conditions. The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the comfort of the majority. It might not be perfect but it is sure already working well to echo and document the concerns of many in the community that really do not feel comfortable to reply to a thread in this e-mail list. Or phabricator. Or a talk page. Reports are confidential and would continue to be so to make sure everyone feels safe to report *any* incident of *any* severity. On this specific case discussing whether profanity is OK or not is just a distraction as there is a long history of hostility and harsh criticism. 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.

Thanks,

Nuria

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks Amir and MZMcBride for disclosing the action.

A volunteer has been punished for speaking up in defense of fellow volunteer and paid contributors, whose contribution was being sidelined and suffocated by people "in charge" of the specific space, i.e. the people they were doing their best to help.

The message which was sanctioned was even of an especially thoughtful kind, in my opinion, because it didn't attempt to submerge the other users with walls of text, politically correct tirades or otherwise charged statements. It was merely a heartfelt interjection to help people stop, reconsider their actions and self-improve without the need of lectures. Was this peculiar effort at constructive facilitation considered? If not, what alternatives or constructive suggestions were provided?

After several negative examples discussed in the last few months on this list,* this action conclusively proves in my eyes the failure of the Code of conduct to be a positive force for our community, at least sso far and in the present conditions.

The committee needs to immediately resign or be disbanded, and be reformed on a more solid basis.

Federico

(*) And not a single disclosed positive action, as far as I know. But it might have been lost due to the lack of a transparency report. If one was released or is upcoming, sorry; I'll revise my conclusions accordingly.

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

Hi,

On 08/08/2018 03:08 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.

We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this clarification is very much needed.

Regardless of whether the amendment of a public disclosure of stuff passes, there needs to be a way for Phabricator administrators to know not to reverse a disabling. The disable log is fairly useless, it just shows the actor and the target - it doesn't even say whether the account was enabled or disabled.

Had I been online when MZMcBride sent his email, I probably would have acted similarly to Mukunda, assuming it was an accident of some sort, and re-enabled the account.

- -- Legoktm