This is not occurring on enwiki; however, if it was, given that this is a
longstanding user I would expect to see a pattern of warnings, a long set
of diffs for prior incidents, clear documentation of both the rule *and*
the social context for the problem before someone gets blocked for a week.
If someone was confused or objected that would all be on the record.

I know better than to suggest every project's internal enforcement and
policies work the same way, but ... three days into the discussion thread,
I am still confused, lacking prior incident information, lacking prior
warnings documentation, lacking explanation of the social context, lacking
explanation for why this "wtf" was enforced but not any of the apparently
500-ish other instances in history on this project.

The enwiki assumption is that it's the responsibility for acting
administrators or arbitrators to justify and explain if someone challenges
or asks for clarification.  That's there for a reason.  Not that every
single act (personally identifiable information leaks, sexual harassment,
issues involving minors, etc) can be fully publicly explained, but
excluding those classes of issue it all should be if someone asks.

I don't feel comfortable watching these exchanges and not getting real
context and explanation.  I went back and reread again tonight and it's
still not coming through.  I don't know this was an improper action, but
it's not explained properly yet.

Can someone on CoC give the rest of us the type of information we'd see if
this was enwiki?  If not, can you explain why not?  I know you may not (yet
or ever) always require that, but it's what is needed to stop these types
of threads and questions.

Thank you

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez <> wrote:

> Thanks Ori for sharing your perspective, you are alone.
> Thanks Amir and Lucie for sharing your perspectives. They are very much
> appreciated.
> We are people interacting with other people. We must never forget that and
> we should treat each other with respect, specially in the online spaces
> with written communication, as there is so much context lost.
> I think it is disingenuous to think this is about using offensive language
> once. Keep it in mind when discussing the actions of the CoC committee,
> because they are reasonable *people* doing their best to uphold our
> communities and spaces to great standards in their volunteer time. Please
> re-read to put things in
> context. Some excerpts that I consider relevant:
> >
> > *In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming community, we are
> > committed to making participation in Wikimedia technical projects a
> > respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone, [...][...]
> Prolific
> > contributions and technical expertise are not a justification for lower
> > standards of behavior.Unacceptable behavior
> > <>*
> >
> >    - *Personal attacks, [...], or deliberate intimidation.*
> >
> >
> >    - *Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments.*
> >
> >
> >    - *[...]*
> >
> >
> >    - *Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication,
> >    following, or any form of stalking.*
> >
> >
> >    - *[...]*
> >
> >
> >    - *Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained
> >    disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e.
> >    trolling).*
> >
> >
> >    - *[...]*
> >
> >
> >    - *Attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee or appeals
> >    body, e.g. unblocking someone during a period the Committee banned
> them.*
> >
> >
> I am personally very thankful that we have it and of the work that the
> committee members have been doing for all of us.
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:57 AM MZMcBride <> wrote:
> > Gergo Tisza wrote:
> > >- First of all, I'd like to thank the Code of Conduct committee for
> doing
> > >their job. It's a hard job where they need to make difficult judgement
> > >calls, and are criticized harshly when they make a bad judgement and
> > >ignored at best when they make a good one (although more likely they
> still
> > >get criticized harshly). It's also a necessary job, so we should be glad
> > >that someone is willing to do it (even if imperfectly, as human beings
> are
> > >bound to). It's not unlike the role of Wikipedia administrators in that
> > >regard.
> >
> > Most of Wikimedia's and most of MediaWiki's existence has progressed
> > without a group of sticklers patrolling for language (or apparently tone)
> > that they happen to disagree with, at that time, in that context. Here's
> > you (Gergo) using the abbreviation "WTF" in May 2018:
> > <>. 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 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 mailing list

-george william herbert
Wikitech-l mailing list

Reply via email to