Pine W wrote:
>When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
>contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
>influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
>moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
>effectively no conduct policy for technical spaces -- in particular,
>Phabricator and MediaWiki, unless I am missing a conduct policy that
>already applies to them outside of the ToS. If there is no policy, is that
>better than the policy that Matthew has been drafting?

The "no conduct policy for technical spaces" argument was debunked here:

Pine W also wrote:
>Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:

Sort of. The proposed text currently includes "If a WMF employee or
contractor is accused of wrongdoing, or a WMF employee or contractor is
reported as being subjected to wrongdoing, the Committee will forward the
report to the employee's or contractor’s manager, and to WMF HR in
writing." It remains very unclear whether this code of conduct policy can
apply to Wikimedia Foundation employees, given comments from the Wikimedia
Foundation's Legal and Human Resources departments.

> While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
>creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
>seems prudent to explore alternatives.

Anarchy? Huh?

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
>However, since the end of 2015 the drafting of the code has largely been
>in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and they have taken it on
>themselves to change that consensus and stated that the code will come
>into effect as soon as the last section is agreed, which will be quite
>Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
>consensus, and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or
>will the WMF choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of
>any community views on the subject?
>If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
>appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?

It's pretty bizarre that nobody has addressed this. Many people supported
specific sections of the proposed document with an explicit understanding
that there would be a final vote on the full document later. A few members
of Wikimedia Foundation staff then tried to declare that a final vote was
not necessary, violating previous statements and agreements. These same
staff members have also been involved in closing discussions in which they
were active participants or even the initiators of the discussion.

This is all noted at
<>. I think these
actions will delegitimize the entire document and any processes or
procedures it attempts to implement.

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>English Wikipedia policy is clear
>"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or
>given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them
>expressing the same opinion."
>Other wikis have similar conventions and policies, and some other wikis
>even formalize this into required edit counts.

It's darkly amusing to see you citing the English Wikipedia. When I
pointed out to you on that "it would never be appropriate
for the person who began a discussion to then also close that discussion,"
you replied that "English Wikipedia policies do not apply here."


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to