FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

MZMcBride-2
>Hello,
>Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports about
>users being offended by you calling them trolls. While those comments
>might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
>contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
>
>Best
>
>--
>This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email
>this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email
>will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
>address to them.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new users
to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single comment
("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an unwelcoming
environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site and
demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.

A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical view
toward outsiders. Maybe these people are auditioning for roles in the
Trump Administration. :-)

I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better and
more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well, the
code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly it's
necessary!" The people pushing this campaign for more bureaucracy have
repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and rightfully!) if
there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.

Best!

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Tim Starling-2
On 25/06/18 07:46, MZMcBride wrote:
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new users
> to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
> But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
> priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single comment
> ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an unwelcoming
> environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site and
> demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.

MZMcBride, a few years ago, a number of people were thoroughly fed up
with your behaviour in technical communication spaces, and there was
serious discussion of banning you. I spoke in your favour at that time
because, when I talked to you 1:1 about the issues, you seemed
contrite and willing to improve yourself.

Although I think you've improved since then, I don't think you've
improved so far that you can now glibly reject a recommendation from
the Code of Conduct committee.

If you ask me, yes it is better to temporarily block newcomers than
expose them to an environment where staff members are called "trolls".
You can unblock but you cannot unoffend. The damage caused by toxicity
is not reversible.

I know you're passionate, and we need passionate people, but you have
to express your views in a civil manner. There's no easy solution to
T197550. We need to welcome newcomers but we also need to prevent
vandalism. Phabricator doesn't offer as many tools for this as
MediaWiki. We're all aware that it's not ideal, and while you're
ranting about civility, smart people are trying to find better
compromises.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Pine W
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
(I was trying to take this entire weekend offline, but having failed at that for a variety of reasons, I am now giving up completely.)

MZMcBride, while I appreciate your energetic engagement, I think that it's reasonable to ask that you slow down a bit and consider alternative ways to express your disagreement. Unless I am overlooking something in that thread, I don't think that Andre was trolling. 

Regarding how the Technical Code of Conduct Committee works, I agree that there should be some changes, but I suggest that proposals for change should be discussed in a separate thread and that they should be proposed in a civil way.

I suggest that you try to think about topics other than Wikimedia for 24 hours, and that you return when you feel more relaxed. Phabricator will probably still be there after a 24 hour break, and hopefully after your break you will feel better.

Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
null
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Federico Leva (Nemo)
I agree that reverting a clearly correct task edit with a pointless
procedural objection is aggressive and not conducive to an inclusive
environment.

Pointing out trollish brehaviour is positive help for self-correction.

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

David Cuenca Tudela
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:26 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Pointing out trollish brehaviour is positive help for self-correction.
>

What you call "trollish behaviour" is to "provoke others (chiefly on the
Internet) for their own personal amusement or to cause disruption". Unless
there is solid evidence, when you call someone a troll you assume bad
faith, and it is not helpful. On that regard I agree with the statement by
TechConductCommittee.

On the other hand, I also agree also with MZMcBride that new users should
be able to at least see the tasks, so I don't understand why the priority
of this bug was lowered. If unapproved users cannot be treated as logged
out, then there should be another solution. Like getting more information
through OAuth to auto-approve users that meet certain criteria, or not
allowing unapproved users to log in so that they can see the tasks
(although I am not totally convinced about this).

Regards,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Stas Malyshev
Hi!

> On the other hand, I also agree also with MZMcBride that new users should
> be able to at least see the tasks, so I don't understand why the priority
> of this bug was lowered. If unapproved users cannot be treated as logged
> out, then there should be another solution. Like getting more information

Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use
incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small
inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very
simple workaround.

--
Stas Malyshev
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

David Cuenca Tudela
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:38 AM Stas Malyshev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use
> incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small
> inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very
> simple workaround.


 Sure, but you have to inform the user somehow about this.

Regards,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Stas Malyshev
Hi!

>     Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use
>     incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small
>     inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very
>     simple workaround.
>
>
>  Sure, but you have to inform the user somehow about this.

I think the easiest way would be to change the error message and add a
pointer to a page which describes the issue and how to work around it. I
imagine changing error message in phab shouldn't be too hard?

--
Stas Malyshev
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by David Cuenca Tudela
Pointless status changes which don't improve our issue tracking but
predictably upset people are definitely provocative in nature and
therefore trolls, whatever the intention behind them (which is not my
interest to investigate). I suspect there might be some linguistic issue
here; "troll" is sometimes used to refer to a single post or act, in
which case the judgement doesn't automatically extend to the author as
an indication of a general pattern.

That said, it could be worthwhile to go beyond individual incidents and
listen to people who express discomfort. There is a wide perception that
WMF employees are the main source of frustration and exclusion of
contributors in our technical community (probably for mere statistical
reasons: they spend a lot of hours in them and cannot just walk away
when their positive energies are exhausted, unlike volunteers).
Unprofessional and unproductive behaviour can often be caused by stress
or other problems at work, which everyone in WMF should help their
colleagues to address. I have a feeling that WMF employees don't get the
help they need to get better.

The victims are predictably the weakest contributors, mostly volunteers
like User:Ruakh (Ran), who registered only one week ago. I hope Ruakh
will be offered an apology for being caught in the crossfire.

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Fæ
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
The lack of transparency of TCC actions and assessment processes is
troubling. TCC was supposed to be a means to handle serious misuse or
harassment, not to use steel boots to stamp out all "non-positivity".

Trivial cases like this should best be handled firstly by off project
grown-up mediation, rather than TCC warnings for which the next step may be
a global ban.

Honestly, the TCC's actions have looked so authoritarian to my eyes, I fear
I am adding evidence to a case for a permanent ban of my account by writing
non-positive words here. The TCC is guilty of creating a hostile
environment that appears unwelcoming and threatens volunteers in all
"technical spaces".

Fae

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, 22:46 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >Hello,
> >Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports about
> >users being offended by you calling them trolls. While those comments
> >might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
> >contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >--
> >This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email
> >this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email
> >will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
> >address to them.
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new users
> to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
> But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
> priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single comment
> ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an unwelcoming
> environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site and
> demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
>
> A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical view
> toward outsiders. Maybe these people are auditioning for roles in the
> Trump Administration. :-)
>
> I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better and
> more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well, the
> code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly it's
> necessary!" The people pushing this campaign for more bureaucracy have
> repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
> pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and rightfully!) if
> there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.
>
> Best!
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

David Cuenca Tudela
@Nemo: It could be that the priority change was not seen as aggressive, and
probably it was not initially as we have the "be bold" tradition. However,
that changes as the issue heats up and becomes an edit war. In this case it
didn't get to that point (less than 3 reverts, although the reverts might
be perceived more strongly in Phabricator, and because the person doing
them had a position of power). Linguistically it is also challenging
because maybe the person using the word "troll" was not aware that it could
have been interpreted as "assuming bad faith". Even if an act is qualified
as "troll" there is some judgement about something that the author of the
action might have not intended.

It is not fair to put all the blame on WMF employees, they might be part of
the issue, but every coin has two sides. WMF employees could improve their
openness with the frustration they get from the community, and also the
community should be more willing to be constructive and understanding.
Probably neither the WMF employees nor the community is getting the help
needed to collaborate better, but whose role is to provide it?

I agree that normally the weakest suffer the most, and that somebody
(again, who?) should take the lead in this case to explain to the
contributor what happened and offer an apology.

@Fae: indeed friendly mediation seems more appropriate in this case, but
again, by who? The people involved in this case didn't have anywhere to go,
so I find it understandable that they resort to their only available option
right now.

If the TCC wants to create a friendly environment, they cannot tackle
unfriendliness in an unfriendly way (unless there are no other options, or
the gravity of the situation requires so).

I am not worried about the lack of transparency of the TCC, because
actually it should be done that way to protect its participants (cfr.
Chatham House Rule), but of course they could document how they reached
difficult decisions. It could be useful to assess future cases.

Micru

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:19 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The lack of transparency of TCC actions and assessment processes is
> troubling. TCC was supposed to be a means to handle serious misuse or
> harassment, not to use steel boots to stamp out all "non-positivity".
>
> Trivial cases like this should best be handled firstly by off project
> grown-up mediation, rather than TCC warnings for which the next step may be
> a global ban.
>
> Honestly, the TCC's actions have looked so authoritarian to my eyes, I fear
> I am adding evidence to a case for a permanent ban of my account by writing
> non-positive words here. The TCC is guilty of creating a hostile
> environment that appears unwelcoming and threatens volunteers in all
> "technical spaces".
>
> Fae
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, 22:46 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > >Hello,
> > >Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports
> about
> > >users being offended by you calling them trolls. While those comments
> > >might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
> > >contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
> > >
> > >Best
> > >
> > >--
> > >This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email
> > >this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email
> > >will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
> > >address to them.
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new users
> > to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
> > But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
> > priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single
> comment
> > ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an unwelcoming
> > environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site and
> > demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
> >
> > A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical
> view
> > toward outsiders. Maybe these people are auditioning for roles in the
> > Trump Administration. :-)
> >
> > I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better and
> > more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well, the
> > code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly
> it's
> > necessary!" The people pushing this campaign for more bureaucracy have
> > repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
> > pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and rightfully!) if
> > there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.
> >
> > Best!
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
Tim Starling wrote:

>On 25/06/18 07:46, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new
>>users to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue
>>tracker. But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting
>>the priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single
>>comment ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an
>>unwelcoming environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading
>>the site and demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
>
>MZMcBride, a few years ago, a number of people were thoroughly fed up
>with your behaviour in technical communication spaces, and there was
>serious discussion of banning you. I spoke in your favour at that time
>because, when I talked to you 1:1 about the issues, you seemed
>contrite and willing to improve yourself.

We wouldn't accept this type of unsubstantiated and unsourced bad-mouthing
on the English Wikipedia, so I'm confused why you think we would accept it
here. If "a number of people" were fed up, please provide some names and
links. I try to improve myself daily.

>I know you're passionate, and we need passionate people, but you have
>to express your views in a civil manner. There's no easy solution to
>T197550. We need to welcome newcomers but we also need to prevent
>vandalism. Phabricator doesn't offer as many tools for this as
>MediaWiki. We're all aware that it's not ideal, and while you're
>ranting about civility, smart people are trying to find better
>compromises.

Oh, come on, Tim. "Smart people" are sending threatening e-mails about an
IRC message to users behind a shared account. That's your better
compromise? I don't really care about the priority of any given task in
Phabricator Maniphest and I rarely touch the field. I do care when we
block all new users from the main entry-point to file issues or feature
requests with an awful error message in the name of "temporary" security.

For what it's worth, instead of telling new users to try an "incognito
browser window", which is a pretty obscure tactic, they could be asked to
e-mail their bug report, task comment, or feature request to whichever
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. staffer created this problem for them and that
staffer could then make the necessary changes to Phabricator Maniphest.
There are over 300 full-time employees working for Wikimedia Foundation
Inc. Surely one of them is available to handle the fallout of this hasty
decision to lock down Phabricator.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

Fæ
In reply to this post by David Cuenca Tudela
If you are going to quote Chatham House Rule, then look it up first please.
The secretive behaviour of the TCC, along with the habit of choosing to
suppress evidence or answer questions, to the stage where WMF employees do
not want to explain what they read with their own eyes for fear of falling
foul of extream interpretations of the CoC, even when originally the
incident was a public published record, is way more paranoid than applying
CHR.

The top level stated values of our community and the WMF are explicitly to
remain as open and transparent as possible. Recent incidents involving the
TCC and the apparent worsening relationships between unpaid volunteers and
WMF contractors/employees demonstrate a failure to meet those ethical and
good governance considerations. Hiding behind an anonymous email address is
merely the most obvious anti-transparency measure. You would think that TCC
members are worried about putting their names against their own Committee's
actions.

"At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the
meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed
to reveal who made any comment. It is designed to increase openness of
discussion." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

Fae (from a mobile phone)

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 11:04 David Cuenca Tudela, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> @Nemo: It could be that the priority change was not seen as aggressive, and
> probably it was not initially as we have the "be bold" tradition. However,
> that changes as the issue heats up and becomes an edit war. In this case it
> didn't get to that point (less than 3 reverts, although the reverts might
> be perceived more strongly in Phabricator, and because the person doing
> them had a position of power). Linguistically it is also challenging
> because maybe the person using the word "troll" was not aware that it could
> have been interpreted as "assuming bad faith". Even if an act is qualified
> as "troll" there is some judgement about something that the author of the
> action might have not intended.
>
> It is not fair to put all the blame on WMF employees, they might be part of
> the issue, but every coin has two sides. WMF employees could improve their
> openness with the frustration they get from the community, and also the
> community should be more willing to be constructive and understanding.
> Probably neither the WMF employees nor the community is getting the help
> needed to collaborate better, but whose role is to provide it?
>
> I agree that normally the weakest suffer the most, and that somebody
> (again, who?) should take the lead in this case to explain to the
> contributor what happened and offer an apology.
>
> @Fae: indeed friendly mediation seems more appropriate in this case, but
> again, by who? The people involved in this case didn't have anywhere to go,
> so I find it understandable that they resort to their only available option
> right now.
>
> If the TCC wants to create a friendly environment, they cannot tackle
> unfriendliness in an unfriendly way (unless there are no other options, or
> the gravity of the situation requires so).
>
> I am not worried about the lack of transparency of the TCC, because
> actually it should be done that way to protect its participants (cfr.
> Chatham House Rule), but of course they could document how they reached
> difficult decisions. It could be useful to assess future cases.
>
> Micru
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:19 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The lack of transparency of TCC actions and assessment processes is
> > troubling. TCC was supposed to be a means to handle serious misuse or
> > harassment, not to use steel boots to stamp out all "non-positivity".
> >
> > Trivial cases like this should best be handled firstly by off project
> > grown-up mediation, rather than TCC warnings for which the next step may
> be
> > a global ban.
> >
> > Honestly, the TCC's actions have looked so authoritarian to my eyes, I
> fear
> > I am adding evidence to a case for a permanent ban of my account by
> writing
> > non-positive words here. The TCC is guilty of creating a hostile
> > environment that appears unwelcoming and threatens volunteers in all
> > "technical spaces".
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, 22:46 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > >Hello,
> > > >Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports
> > about
> > > >users being offended by you calling them trolls. While those comments
> > > >might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
> > > >contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
> > > >
> > > >Best
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email
> > > >this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your
> email
> > > >will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
> > > >address to them.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new
> users
> > > to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
> > > But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
> > > priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single
> > comment
> > > ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an
> unwelcoming
> > > environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site
> and
> > > demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
> > >
> > > A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical
> > view
> > > toward outsiders. Maybe these people are auditioning for roles in the
> > > Trump Administration. :-)
> > >
> > > I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better and
> > > more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well, the
> > > code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly
> > it's
> > > necessary!" The people pushing this campaign for more bureaucracy have
> > > repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
> > > pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and rightfully!)
> if
> > > there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.
> > >
> > > Best!
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Warning on behalf of Code of conduct committee

David Cuenca Tudela
I do not have enough information about the events that you are talking
about, so I cannot form a complete picture with the limited information
that you offer. The nature of the job of the TCC seems to suggest that they
should operate with discretion and confidentiality, and answer questions
only to the people involved in the issues. They do not have to explain
whatever they read to any outside party, because even with all the values
of openness and transparency, the privacy of the involved parties should be
guaranteed. I mentioned the CHR because it offers a way to share
information from meetings if needed, not to say that all information should
be shared, because that is not the case.

I do not consider the operation of a common account as hiding, but rather
as a way to distribute the pressure that comes from external parties.
Considering the negative language that you use in your communication I find
it very appropriate.

Micru (also from mobile)


On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:34 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you are going to quote Chatham House Rule, then look it up first please.
> The secretive behaviour of the TCC, along with the habit of choosing to
> suppress evidence or answer questions, to the stage where WMF employees do
> not want to explain what they read with their own eyes for fear of falling
> foul of extream interpretations of the CoC, even when originally the
> incident was a public published record, is way more paranoid than applying
> CHR.
>
> The top level stated values of our community and the WMF are explicitly to
> remain as open and transparent as possible. Recent incidents involving the
> TCC and the apparent worsening relationships between unpaid volunteers and
> WMF contractors/employees demonstrate a failure to meet those ethical and
> good governance considerations. Hiding behind an anonymous email address is
> merely the most obvious anti-transparency measure. You would think that TCC
> members are worried about putting their names against their own Committee's
> actions.
>
> "At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the
> meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed
> to reveal who made any comment. It is designed to increase openness of
> discussion." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
>
> Fae (from a mobile phone)
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 11:04 David Cuenca Tudela, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > @Nemo: It could be that the priority change was not seen as aggressive,
> and
> > probably it was not initially as we have the "be bold" tradition.
> However,
> > that changes as the issue heats up and becomes an edit war. In this case
> it
> > didn't get to that point (less than 3 reverts, although the reverts might
> > be perceived more strongly in Phabricator, and because the person doing
> > them had a position of power). Linguistically it is also challenging
> > because maybe the person using the word "troll" was not aware that it
> could
> > have been interpreted as "assuming bad faith". Even if an act is
> qualified
> > as "troll" there is some judgement about something that the author of the
> > action might have not intended.
> >
> > It is not fair to put all the blame on WMF employees, they might be part
> of
> > the issue, but every coin has two sides. WMF employees could improve
> their
> > openness with the frustration they get from the community, and also the
> > community should be more willing to be constructive and understanding.
> > Probably neither the WMF employees nor the community is getting the help
> > needed to collaborate better, but whose role is to provide it?
> >
> > I agree that normally the weakest suffer the most, and that somebody
> > (again, who?) should take the lead in this case to explain to the
> > contributor what happened and offer an apology.
> >
> > @Fae: indeed friendly mediation seems more appropriate in this case, but
> > again, by who? The people involved in this case didn't have anywhere to
> go,
> > so I find it understandable that they resort to their only available
> option
> > right now.
> >
> > If the TCC wants to create a friendly environment, they cannot tackle
> > unfriendliness in an unfriendly way (unless there are no other options,
> or
> > the gravity of the situation requires so).
> >
> > I am not worried about the lack of transparency of the TCC, because
> > actually it should be done that way to protect its participants (cfr.
> > Chatham House Rule), but of course they could document how they reached
> > difficult decisions. It could be useful to assess future cases.
> >
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:19 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > The lack of transparency of TCC actions and assessment processes is
> > > troubling. TCC was supposed to be a means to handle serious misuse or
> > > harassment, not to use steel boots to stamp out all "non-positivity".
> > >
> > > Trivial cases like this should best be handled firstly by off project
> > > grown-up mediation, rather than TCC warnings for which the next step
> may
> > be
> > > a global ban.
> > >
> > > Honestly, the TCC's actions have looked so authoritarian to my eyes, I
> > fear
> > > I am adding evidence to a case for a permanent ban of my account by
> > writing
> > > non-positive words here. The TCC is guilty of creating a hostile
> > > environment that appears unwelcoming and threatens volunteers in all
> > > "technical spaces".
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, 22:46 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Hello,
> > > > >Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports
> > > about
> > > > >users being offended by you calling them trolls. While those
> comments
> > > > >might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
> > > > >contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
> > > > >
> > > > >Best
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the
> "Email
> > > > >this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your
> > email
> > > > >will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
> > > > >address to them.
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new
> > users
> > > > to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue
> tracker.
> > > > But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
> > > > priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single
> > > comment
> > > > ("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly what contributes to an
> > unwelcoming
> > > > environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site
> > and
> > > > demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
> > > >
> > > > A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical
> > > view
> > > > toward outsiders. Maybe these people are auditioning for roles in the
> > > > Trump Administration. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better
> and
> > > > more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well,
> the
> > > > code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly
> > > it's
> > > > necessary!" The people pushing this campaign for more bureaucracy
> have
> > > > repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
> > > > pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and
> rightfully!)
> > if
> > > > there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.
> > > >
> > > > Best!
> > > >
> > > > MZMcBride
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



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