Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[MZMcBride]

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:
. 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] Wikimedia production issues (August 2018)

[Krinkle]

How did we do in our strive for operational excellence since last month?
Read on to find out!

## The month in numbers

* 2 documented incidents since July 19. [1]
* 55 Wikimedia-log-errors tasks closed after July 19. [2]
* 31 Wikimedia-log-errors tasks created after July 19. [3]

Logstash (type=mediawiki, last 7 days):
* 2,048 fatals. (channel=fatal)
* 117,372 exceptions. (channel=exception)
* 21,043 PHP errors.  (channel=error)
* 6,368,647 total error-level events. (channel=*, level=ERROR)

## Highlights

### New database partition

@Josve05a reported that Special:Log was timing out on commons.wikimedia.org
for certain queries. Database administrator @Marostegui, investigated the
underlying query and found out this was caused by one of the backend
database servers having an unpartitioned 'logging' table. Manuel took the
server out of rotation for re-partitioning, which was completed later that
day.

– https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199790

### Disappearing audio players, mystery solved

When Étienne Beaulé (@Ebe123) found PHP-Notice errors in the Score
extension, they immediately investigated. It began as the fixing of a typo
that caused
inefficient (but working) parsing of audio data. Upon closer inspection, a
bigger story was uncovered. The computation of audio lengths was being
skipped due to a mismatch in MIME-types between Score and
TimedMediaHandler. The player needs this length, and as a result, browsers
had to download and parse the audio data entirely client-side, creating a
delay of 5-20 seconds or more.

Four months earlier, Andre reported that pressing play on an audio player,
made the player disappear for a long time.
It all makes sense now.

– https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192550 /
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200835

### Packet loss

After noticing that exception IDs from error pages were not found in
Logstash, Tim Starling started an investigation. He created a new Grafana
dashboard and the culprit was quickly identified. Over 3000 packets were
being dropped, every second. That's over 90% of server logs – missing!

14 deployments, 9 SAL entries, and 6 days later, we finally reached 0%
packet loss.

Many thanks to Filippo Giunchedi, @BBlack, @herron, @Gehel who got to the
bottom of this.

Our weekly error numbers increased 100X since last month, and.. that's a
good thing!

–
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/logstash?orgId=1=153009720=153329040
– https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200960

### Vips or no Vips

We use the VipsScaler extension to create thumbnails of large TIFF and PNG
files in some cases. Test requests for it failed with "10.2.1.21 port 80:
Connection refused".  The error was puzzling because the IP does not belong
to MediaWiki or an image-scaling service. Rather, it belongs to Proton, a
Chromium PDF service.

Investigation from @MoritzMuehlenhoff, @Reedy, and others revealed the
service IP used by Proton since June 2018 previously belonged to the
mediawiki-imagescaler pool (dissolved in April 2018). Configuration for
VipsScaler was outdated and stopped working in April. The issue was not
noticed until the IP address started working again, with an unrelated
service producing errors.

– https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199937 /
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199938

## Higher impact

These cause users (of web or api) to see errors.

New:
* [ProofreadPage extension] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201506 -
MWContentSerializationException: The serialization is an invalid JSON array.
* [Flow extension] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201654 -
InvalidArgumentException
"The Title object yields no ID" from Flow\LinksTableUpdater.
* [MediaWiki-Logging] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201411 - Date
input on Special:Log can cause fatal error.

Carried over:
* [Page deletion] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195692 - Undelete for
certain pages aborted by IncompleteRevisionException.
* [AbuseFilter extension] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T187153 -
Special:Abuselog throws BadMethodCallException on details/examine.
* [Flow extension] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T70526 -
InvalidDataException "Flow workflow is for different page".
* [MobileFrontend] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199066 -
Special:MobileContributions shows "Special:Badtitle" (Revision::ensureTitle
error).

## Noise

These are caused by code behaving unexpectedly, but with limited impact due
to graceful recovery by PHP, or other handling. These harm our ability to
detect and prevent higher impact issues (through Scap and Fatal-Monitor),
and may be masking other issues.

New:
* [FileImporter extension] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200837 - PHP
Notice: Undefined index from WikiTextContentCleaner.php.
* [PagedTiffHandler] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200839 - PHP
Notice: Undefined index from PagedTiffHandler_body.php.

Carried over: None!

All of last month's noise mentions were fixed! 

## Thank you

Thank you to everyone for helping 

[Wikitech-l] Invitation to a "Wikimedia Café" casual online meetup

[Pine W]

Hi folks,

Based on comments that I received on Wikimedia-l, I would like to invite
people to a casual online meetup one hour before the monthly WMF Metrics
and Activities Meeting.

There will be no set agenda. You can come with questions or ideas that you
would like to discuss. Please be willing to listen to questions and ideas
from other Wikimedians.

I will host the meeting with the Zoom software. You can join with software
or by using your phone. If you join by phone then your phone number will be
visible to other participants.

The primary language of the meeting will be English, but if people would
like to communicate in diverse languages then that is okay too. We can
facilitate translation by text chat. Many Wikimedians, myself included, are
multilingual in varying degrees, so we might try to have live
interpretation also.

Here is information about how to connect:

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/136978210

Or iPhone one-tap :
Argentina: +543415122188,,136978210#
Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current
location):
Argentina: +54 341 512 2188
Australia: +61 (0) 2 8015 2088  or +61 (0) 8 7150 1149
Canada: +1 647 558 0588
Hong Kong, China: +852 5808 6088
France: +33 (0) 1 8288 0188  or +33 (0) 7 5678 4048
Germany: +49 (0) 30 3080 6188  or +49 (0) 30 5679 5800
Israel: +972 (0) 3 978 6688
Italy: +39 069 480 6488
Japan: +81 (0) 3 4578 1488  or +81 524 564 439
Mexico: +52 229 910 0061  or +52 554 161 4288
Spain: +34 84 368 5025  or +34 91 198 0188
Sweden: +46 (0) 7 6692 0434  or +46 (0) 8 4468 2488
Russia: +7 495 283 9788
United Kingdom: +44 (0) 20 3051 2874  or +44 (0) 20 3695 0088
US: +1 408 638 0986  or +1 646 558 8665
Meeting ID: 136 978 210
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ekaPibJIy

The first "Wikimedia Café" meetup will be on 30 August 2018, at 17:00 UTC /
10:00 Pacific.

Let me emphasize that the environment won't be like this
,
so please don't feel intimated if you are nervous about public speaking.
(If a conversation feels to me like it is becoming uncivil or intimidating,
then I will ask the debaters to quiet themselves or to move to somewhere
else.) The meeting will generally have an environment that is more like this
 or
this
.
I anticipate that few people will come, which is okay. I hope that if you
come then you will enjoy the environment and conversation.

Until next time,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[David Barratt]

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  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/
>  >
> >
> > 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 
> 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
> >> smalys...@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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[David Barratt]

>
> 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  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM Stas Malyshev 
> 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
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Isarra Yos]

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/ 


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 




On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev  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
smalys...@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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Completion of GSoC work : Achievements and Quiz module in Commons app

[Srishti Sethi]

Congrats Tanvi! Glad to hear you had a good time working on the project.
And, the recording shows neat implementation :)

Thanks, Josephine and Vivek for mentoring Tanvi and supporting her work!





On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Ramsey Isler  wrote:

> Congrats, Tanvi! Good work :)
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM Tanvi Dadu  wrote:
>
> > Greeting!
> > I am Tanvi Dadu,  GSoC 2018 participant. For the past three months, I
> have
> > been working on Achievements Module in Commons App and
> > quiz
> > and it gives me
> immense
> > happiness to say that I have successfully completed it. Both of the
> > features have been released as part of 2.8 version.  My works summary is
> > present at my MediaWiki
> >  > >userpage
> > .
> >
> > I would like to thank my Mentors ,Josephine Lim and Vivek Maskara, and
> the
> > whole Commons team for helping and encouraging me throughout the summer.
> It
> > feels very satisfying and amazing to be part of this community. I had an
> > amazing experience with lots of learning involved and I can't thank
> enough
> > to give this wonderful opportunity.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tanvi Dadu
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Srishti Sethi
Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:SSethi_(WMF)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Gergo Tisza]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM Stas Malyshev 
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Completion of GSoC work : Achievements and Quiz module in Commons app

[Ramsey Isler]

Congrats, Tanvi! Good work :)

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM Tanvi Dadu  wrote:

> Greeting!
> I am Tanvi Dadu,  GSoC 2018 participant. For the past three months, I have
> been working on Achievements Module in Commons App and
> quiz
> and it gives me immense
> happiness to say that I have successfully completed it. Both of the
> features have been released as part of 2.8 version.  My works summary is
> present at my MediaWiki
>  >userpage
> .
>
> I would like to thank my Mentors ,Josephine Lim and Vivek Maskara, and the
> whole Commons team for helping and encouraging me throughout the summer. It
> feels very satisfying and amazing to be part of this community. I had an
> amazing experience with lots of learning involved and I can't thank enough
> to give this wonderful opportunity.
>
> Regards
> Tanvi Dadu
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Gergo Tisza]

Some thoughts:

- 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.

- I imagine the CoC committee sees the public announcing of bans as a kind
of public shaming that the banned people might not want and do not deserve.
I appreciate the intent but I think 99% of the time the banned person will
just use the opportunity to make the announcement themselves, frame the
issue to their benefit and maximize drama. (The kind of person who would be
unwilling to do that typically does not give cause for being banned in the
first place.) So it would be better if the committee made the announcement
themselves (maybe not as a rule, but as a default).

- Some people can tell when the use of the word "fuck" is hostile to a
fellow contributor, some people can't (and some can tell very precisely and
pretend not to, but let's not go there). If you are the second type of
person, just don't use it, it's that easy. It's not like you are somehow
handicapped by not being able to swear in public.

- I find all the "why did he get banned over a single WTF comment?"
questions a bit disingenuous. MZMcBride has a long history of hostility and
of trying to apply meanness as a social lever to influence prioritization
decisions. Those who have been around long in Wikimedia technical spaces
are well aware of that, and most people asking these faux-naive questions
*have* been around for long. Please don't set strawmans. If you want to
argue that a pattern of lots and lots of "wtf comments" spanning multiple
years is not something that should ever result in a ban, argue for that. If
you really think the notification about a ban should contain the person's
entire history of abuse, say that. But let's treat this discussion as a
serious thing.

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Victoria Coleman]

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/ 


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 



> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev  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
> smalys...@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] Completion of GSoC work : Achievements and Quiz module in Commons app

[Tanvi Dadu]

Greeting!
I am Tanvi Dadu,  GSoC 2018 participant. For the past three months, I have
been working on Achievements Module in Commons App and
quiz
and it gives me immense
happiness to say that I have successfully completed it. Both of the
features have been released as part of 2.8 version.  My works summary is
present at my MediaWiki
userpage
.

I would like to thank my Mentors ,Josephine Lim and Vivek Maskara, and the
whole Commons team for helping and encouraging me throughout the summer. It
feels very satisfying and amazing to be part of this community. I had an
amazing experience with lots of learning involved and I can't thank enough
to give this wonderful opportunity.

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

[Wikitech-l] Renaming user rights in an existing extension - help and procedure

[MA]

Hello,

I'd like to request advice on handling a task at hand.

It results that Extension:ArticleToCategory2

is using some sort of old-fashioned way to name their user rights (ie:
ArticleToCategory2AddCat instead of all lowercase; or
ArticleToCategory2 which is somewhat confusing). I'd like to fix that,
but I was wondering if that'd cause undue complications in existing
installs and, if so, if it should go first via a deprecation process
or other process I am not aware off.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can offer.

Best regards, M.

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

[Wikitech-l] 2018-08-08 Scrum of Scrums meeting note

[Grace Gellerman]

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2018-08-08

= 2018-08-08 =
== Callouts ==
* Need help reviewing https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/
extensions/WikimediaEvents/+/450021/Anyone? (I added Timo as a reviewer -
Ian)

* Release Engineering: feedback needed from various teams on two recent
MediaWiki train related incident reports. Specifically, how problems could
have been prevented.
*** 1.32.0-wmf.13, 9 blockers, feedback needed for all of them (Audiences
Design, Contributors, MediaWiki Platform, Performance, Scoring Platform,
Wikidata): https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incident_
documentation/20180717-Train
*** 1.32.0-wmf.14, 6 blockers, feedback needed for 2 of them (Performance,
Readers, Wikidata): https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incident_
documentation/20180724-Train

== Audiences ==
=== Readers ===
 iOS native app 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
**6.0 in beta (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/ios-app-v6.
0-walrus-on-a-unicycle/) til 8/20
**We'll begin working on 6.0.1 soon (https://phabricator.
wikimedia.org/tag/ios-app-v6.0.1-walrus-on-a-golf-cart/)

 Android native app 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** Maintenance update released to production.
** Beginning work on Notifications support: https://phabricator.
wikimedia.org/project/view/3505/

 Readers Web 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** Mobile website (MinervaNeue / MobileFrontend):
*** Page issues UI and instrumentation: T191532 T197932 T191528
*** Invest in the MobileFrontend & MinervaNeue frontend architecture:
T188261 T197133
*** Other fixes and hygiene: T199282 T193172 T201131 T197110 T197931
T200867 T200518

 Readers Infrastructure 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** MCS patch to prepare for Parsoid  tags in code review:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/services/mobileapps/+/450896,
hope to deploy today
** MCS preparing announcement for Android app multi-language features:
T191640
** Continuing work on mobile-html endpoint improvements (see open subtasks
of T177433)
** Maps (*ping Gehel*):
*** deployment-maps04 is up and running for testing Maps on Stretch in the
BC
*** we're ready for the maps cluster switchover to Stretch
*** maps-test cluster can be decom'd (perhaps, but not necessarily, after
the maps cluster switchover to Stretch)

 Multimedia 
* Updates
** Engineering spinning back up
** Search work is progressing and getting merged - the Search team has
promised to do some re-indexing on our behalf
** Fixed an UploadWizard bug for WLM that needs review -
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183075
** Filed a task for security review of MediaInfo (but it's not urgent) -
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200279
** Upcoming work on MediaInfo, MCR

=== Contributors ===
 Community Tech 
* Blocked by:
** Security for TemplateWizard review https://phabricator.
wikimedia.org/T198666
* Blocking:
* Updates:
**

 Anti-Harassment Tools 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** IRC meeting today about Partial Blocks RFC: https://phabricator.
wikimedia.org/T199917

 Editing 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
** Updates:
**

 Parsing 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:

   - Post-Tidy replacement: Added new lint detection for pages that might
   have been affected  by Tidy removal: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:
   Extension:Linter/misc-tidy-replacement-issues
   



 Growth 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
**

 Language 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** ContentTranslation merge blocker is resolved!
** Niklas responded to Community Tech to inquiry about TranslateSVG:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201207#4488381


=== Audiences Design ===
 UI Standardization 
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** OOUI next minor release v0.28 in preparation.
*** Supporting GSOC student Hagar Shilo in finishing up new OOUI
“Tutorials” section, thanks also to Moriel for initiative
*** Preparation of some UI fine-tuning for frameless buttons
** Finishing up SVG optimization in Popups (last product resolved)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185596

== Technology ==
=== Analytics ===
* Blocked by:
* Blocking:
* Updates:
** “Total article count metric” vetted, available on API now and Wikistats
UI soon
** Eventlogging outage due to attack using very long user agents solved
with “band aid” patch, working on a timeout-for-long-regexes defense:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incident_documentation/20180728-
eventlogging
** Data available in wikistats for July, this was the shortest
reconstruction, it took less than 48hrs. Edits split by editor types for
all wikis: https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects/contributing/edits/
normal
** Took decision of using Json schema (rather than avro) for the Modern
Event Data Platform. Take a look: https://tools.wmflabs.

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Stas Malyshev]

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
smalys...@wikimedia.org

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Lucas Werkmeister]

Am Do., 9. Aug. 2018 um 13:50 Uhr schrieb Aryeh Gregor :

> 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

-- 
Lucas Werkmeister
Software Developer (working student)

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[David Barratt]

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 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM David Barratt 
> 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
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM David Barratt  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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[David Barratt]

>
> 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  wrote:

> 2018-08-09 15:12 GMT+03:00 Lucie Kaffee :
> > 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
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Isarra Yos]

On 09/08/18 07:40, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:

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.


I don't really see how it's fair to hold someone responsible for the 
complete and utter overreaction of others as a result of a single, 
fairly ordinary statement on their part. No, MZMcBride's wtf wasn't 
exactly ideal, but by itself should have at worst been an easily ignored 
irritation. Only because of the compounding reactions to it does it 
appear to hold any weight at all; no other 'wtf's, 'fuck php's, 'oh fuck 
shit shit fucking fuck fuck did this do's, or even the sometimes cited 
James Wales statement that I would argue truly was completely 
inappropriate, have had any such impact, simply because everyone else 
refrained from losing their heads over it.


Perhaps we should all step back a bit and realise that /we're/ the ones 
making this a major issue - that the problem is not the statement that 
was made on phabricator, but everything that has occurred after.


What was it that really caused all this?

-I


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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Strainu]

2018-08-09 15:12 GMT+03:00 Lucie Kaffee :
> 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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Lucie Kaffee]

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  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:13 AM, MZMcBride  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
>



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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Aryeh Gregor]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:13 AM, MZMcBride  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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Aryeh Gregor]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
> 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?

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.

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2018-08-09 12:10 GMT+03:00 Fæ :

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Bináris]

2018-08-08 12:08 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup :

> We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from
> mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.
>

What happens if a user has this function disabled?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Fæ]

The CoC does not exist in a vacuum and is itself ultimately only has
any authority through the largess of the WMF board and its
resolutions. The Code of Conduct Committee is dangerously arrogant if
its members believe they are independent of the WMF's policies or WMF
legal. For the Committee to make any claim of good governance, the
committee must be seen to demonstrate that:

1. The Code of Conduct Committee fully applies the Wikimedia values.[1]

2. The Committee commits to transparency and (credible external)
accountability, and is taking positive steps to assure the wider
community that it is itself /seen/ to be well governed.

3. The Committee is committed to ensuring natural justice in its
actions, i.e. its decisions are evidence based, unbiased and those
being acted on have a right to a fair hearing.


There is no such thing as "good governance" if it all happens behind
closed doors. The defensive reactions to the whistle-blowing of this
case against a long standing volunteer, rather than attempting to
improve or learn from the views of the wider community is especially
worrying.

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. Wales is not a haphazard rogue in this, our previous CEO Sue
Gardner has regularly justified the use of "fuck" as a way of making a
strong point in multiple channels.[3] It is not natural justice to
hang our most productive volunteers out to dry by arbitrarily holding
them to a higher standard of super-duper nice behaviour and polite
genteel language than those at the apex of authority, where their
identical choice of words is spread over the international press, not
just Phabricator threads literally read by a handful of people.

To be seen to be wise in using its massive ban hammer, the Committee
members need to use it sparingly. Treat long term committed
volunteers, even those you may see as disruptive, as respectfully you
would any teenager or Jimmy Wales, by exhausting conventional adult to
adult talking options, before slamming them down in what now appears
to be easily avoidable escalation of a very minor infraction of
civility.

Links
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2008
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
3. https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/907625338963886080

Fae

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 08:41, Amir E. Aharoni
 wrote:
>
> 2018-08-08 21:42 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>
> > 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
-- 
fae...@gmail.com 

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Strainu]

2018-08-08 23:29 GMT+03:00 Amir Ladsgroup :
> 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

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2018-08-08 21:42 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Physikerwelt]

Hi!

I do support the CoC. There is a trade-off between being inclusive and
enforcing a CoC (that is implicitly based on a US-German concordance
of cultural norms).

I share the vision of the Wikimedia movement and I want to contribute
towards the goals. To do that a reasonable pleasant working
environment is required. That's why I argue that we need to enforce
the CoC, even though it might be unfair for a minority. While there in
improvement potential for the yet novel CoC procedures, as outlined in
this email thread, I want to use this opportunity to thank the CoC
committee for their great work.

While I chose to donate time rather than money (to pay WMDE or WMF
employes), I still don't understand why the difference between being a
volunteer developer or staff matters to this discussion. I would love
to be enlighted why the division in staff and volunteers is
constructive.

Best
physikerwelt (Moritz Schubotz)

Disclaimer: Although I do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation,
contributions under this account often represent the actions or views
of the Foundation. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other
media are done in my individual, personal capacity but share the
intend;-).

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 8/8/18 1:58 PM, bawolff wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think it's this one:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-August/090490.html
>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Bináris]

2018-08-08 23:32 GMT+02:00 Ori Livneh :

> The responses to that included on-wiki comments telling me to go
> fuck myself
>
>
> You said it! You said it! :-)
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqkh
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] coc ban

[Andre Klapper]

On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 15:36 +0100, Fæ wrote:
> So what?

Nah, rather https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism when someone
brings up en.wp stuff though the subject line says CoC?

andre
-- 
Andre Klapper | Bugwrangler / Developer Advocate
https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/



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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: My Phabricator account has been disabled

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

On 8/8/18 1:58 PM, bawolff wrote:
> 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.

I think it's this one:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-August/090490.html

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

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