Hi!
> 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
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
I wanted to comment quickly on one thing that was called out.
Closing "valid tasks" may be appropriate depending on the task and the
context. Closed is a valid state for a task and may well be most
appropriate.
There is a reason for this, and I want to be clear:
Tasks are not isolated platonic
Wikimedia-l is not a technical mailing list.
That said I personally think that any sort of effective CoC would have take
actions on other spaces into account when it is about a matter that is in
coc juridsiction (otherwise harrasment would just move off wiki). The more
concerning part to me is
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:08 PM, MZMcBride 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
Adam Wight wrote:
>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
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM MZMcBride 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
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:13 PM MZMcBride wrote:
> 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?
>
No, but asking "are you for real?" would have been similarly problematic in
my view. The
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
Brion Vibber wrote:
>I would advise you generally to treat wikitech-l like a professional
>workspace, which it is for those of us who are employees of WMF or WMDE.
I think there's a big schism that you're pointing to here: why do you
think it's appropriate for you or anyone else to impose your
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"
While what are we arguing then? I think i have lost track.
--
brian
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, 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").
>
> On Wed,
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 wrote:
> Ori Livneh wrote:
> >MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how
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
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, Ori Livneh wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:48 PM bawolff 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
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
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:48 PM bawolff 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
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
Having personally been subject of a case of sexual harassment at an
unrelated event a few years back where I was supposedly the victim, I
have to wonder even about those. Seriously, what the hell /is/ sexual
harassment? Because in my case, apparently me butting into a
conversation just to be
Quick update... no major problems noticed so far. One configuration change
I made was to re-enable VP8 transcodes for new files, since disabling them
completely lead to the existing ones not being used. Later in the
transition, or afterwards, we'll clean up the now-unused VP8 transcodes.
If I'm
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
[...]
> 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.
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure I see where this is public.
> 3) not being able to
2018-08-08 17:44 GMT+03:00 Dan Garry :
> On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk 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
>
2018-08-08 18:53 GMT+03:00 Bináris :
> 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
Errata:
make cases possible --> make cases public whenever possible
Gmail has tricked on me.
2018-08-08 22:46 GMT+02:00 Bináris :
>
>
> 2018-08-08 22:29 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup :
>
>> 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't
>> clarify points. But these secrecy
2018-08-08 22:29 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup :
> 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
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
Okay, in all seriousness, ArbCom does work. It does a good /enough/ job,
when you weigh it against the alternatives. I'm not really sure how, at
the sorts of scales we're looking at, anything would do much better.
While our technical communities operate on a much smaller scale, this
still
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 wrote:
> Are you suggesting that ArbCom does a good job of maintaining a collegial,
> harassment-free environment on English Wikipedia? Just wanted to
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 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 wrote:
>
> On other projects, we have community-elected groups among whom we see
> oversight in
I fear that this thread is perhaps having a chilling effect on the members
of the Code of Conduct Committee, but perhaps that was the desired effect.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:51 PM Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Thanks Amir and MZMcBride for disclosing the action.
>
> A volunteer has been
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,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM bawolff 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
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
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
I guess the best place remains #wikimedia-tech on FreeNode as always.
Cf. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T22079
Federico
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi folks,
When I go to https://status.wikimedia.org/ I get the following text:
"status.wikimedia.org has been deprecated
The page previously known as status.wikimedia.org has been deprecated,
more information at T199816 and related subtasks.
For user-facing HTTP errors please see frontend
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:53 PM, MZMcBride 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
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
Of course. But then you also have to consider that certain decisions by
employees also can discourage people from constructive participation,
especially when they are not thinking that their voice is or will be
heard in any way.
@Brion: Wasn’t talking about any ‘abuse’. As far as I know (as
Yeah, even if it seems like volunteers are treated as second class
citizens, advocating mistreatment of staff too isn't going to resolve
anything. We should all just try to do our best, and all realise that
these are /peolpe/ we're dealing with. It's not always going to be
perfect, it's not
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Dan Garry wrote:
> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride 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
>
> --
>
On 8 August 2018 at 19:54, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Oleg -- I interpret that suggestion as "employees of WMF and WMDE have to
> accept all ongoing abuse they are given without complaint"; that may not be
> what you intended but that's how I read it, and I'd like to unequivocally
> *reject that
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Saint Johann wrote:
>
> Code of conduct is important to be enforced, but, in my opinion, there should
> be a difference in how it’s enforced. To volunteers that help the movement,
> there should be no unacceptable language, as it is a way (and a purpose of
>
Oleg -- I interpret that suggestion as "employees of WMF and WMDE have to
accept all ongoing abuse they are given without complaint"; that may not be
what you intended but that's how I read it, and I'd like to unequivocally
*reject that notion*.
WMF and WMDE employees are people performing a job,
Sure.
Wikimedia Foundation employees inherently have more privilege and weight
in MediaWiki developer community than the volunteers do, especially less
participating ones. Power dynamics of the discussion between a volunteer
and an employee (and, sometimes even more generally on Phabricator)
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
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Saint Johann wrote:
>
> especially when said to Wikimedia employees as opposed to volunteers.)
Can you elaborate on that?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Dennis.
I would advise you generally to treat wikitech-l like a professional
workspace, which it is for those of us who are employees of WMF or WMDE.
If your corporate HR department would frown at you making a statement about
people's character or motivations with derogatory language, think
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?).
Given the nature of the email it should be (treated as) comprehensive.
And in the absence (thus far) of the text being denied by the author, and
the recipient/forwarder being a known Wikimedian, I'm inclined to believe
that really was what was written.
Otherwise we would have almost no means to
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
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
I’m sorry, but no, even the evidence that Jimmy Wales is a worst human
being on the entire planet Earth wouldn’t make some kinds of language
(like the one you are quoting from) acceptable in a collaborative
environment. Of course, he should apologise, but CoCC doesn’t have any
authority about
On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk 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
I see two issues here:
1. Lack of logging of autodisabled accounts means that confusions such
as this may arise, but more especially, we appear to lack any way to
track for false positives of accounts from new users who do mean well,
who instead of going to someone to bring up the issue,
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/
What kind of snowflake environment is this? Or do we use the alleged
presence of snowflakes as a weapon against opposing views?
>
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
So what? This is Wikimedia Board Members that are setting a precedent
for acceptable language on our projects. Jimmy Wales himself gets
lauded with virtual high fives for telling a fellow board member they
are talking "fucking bullshit", and Jimmy Wales remains the only
memorable press/public face
On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 15:22 +0100, Fæ wrote:
> Wales has never retracted nor apologised for writing on the English
> Wikipedia that a statement by Heilman was "utter fucking bullshit".
English Wikipedia is not a venue covered by the CoC for Wikimedia
technical spaces. See
Saying "WTF" is by default acceptable for all projects unless the WMF
board agrees a resolution and enforces it on its own board members, as
well as volunteers and WMF employees. If anyone is blocked or banned
under the Technical CoC for using similar language which has been
published by WMF board
Do you have any suggestions of what would be a more appropriate forum?
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:23 AM Dan Garry wrote:
> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> >
>
> This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> with the
On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 09:16 -0400, kevin zhang wrote:
> So let me just clarify, so despite a few weeks ago the decision was
> effectively "we highly encourage but won't require", now it's if you
> do not include the coc then we will ban you from phabricator?
You need to quote whatever specific
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Alex Monk 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
No, this was for saying "WTF".
On 8 August 2018 at 15:16, kevin zhang wrote:
> So let me just clarify, so despite a few weeks ago the decision was
> effectively "we highly encourage but won't require", now it's if you do not
> include the coc then we will ban you from phabricator?
>
> Just want
That was about the other thing, putting Code of Conduct file into every
MediaWiki extension. Wikimedia Phabricator is by design a MediaWiki
development space, so it’s under code of conduct by all definitions.
(Although I must comment that banning a person for a ‘WTF’ type of
comment is really
Alex, honestly as a passive observer I have seen CoC issues used as a
sledge hammer to force ideas thru and to shut down open civil discussions
and disagreements.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
> Not
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, wrote:
> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> >
>
> This mailing list is not an
Why shouldn’t users be able to A) find out why their account was disabled?
(Original email list in clutter) 2) something as simple as WTF isn’t a
reasonable bannable offense. It wasn’t calling someone an F. If the CoC
Committee is afraid of having their actions brought to life in a public
On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride 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
So let me just clarify, so despite a few weeks ago the decision was
effectively "we highly encourage but won't require", now it's if you do not
include the coc then we will ban you from phabricator?
Just want to make sure I understand the current stance...
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 8:01 AM wrote:
>
So are we supposed to be careful about using 'wtf' now?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 13:53 MZMcBride, 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
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
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.
*# Vocarnival*
The Vocabulary Carnival (Vocarnival) at SEMANTiCS 2018 is a unique
opportunity for vocabulary publishers to showcase and share their work,
meet the growing community of vocabulary publishers and users, and build
useful semantic, technical and social links. The Vocarnival forms
75 matches
Mail list logo
