My Phabricator account has been disabled

[MZMcBride-2]

Hi.

My Phabricator account has been disabled. I don't seem to have any e-mail
about this action, so I'm mostly just curious who did it and why. If
there's a log entry somewhere, that would be nice, but I don't know how
transparent Phabricator or its admins are. I suppose it would also be nice
to know if the person ever plans on undoing this unexplained disablement.

I have over 56,000 unread e-mails in my "Phabricator" folder, so if I've
overlooked an explanatory e-mail, please let me know!

In the meantime, I guess I'll just, uhh, log out to view Phabricator.

MZMcBride



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

[Mukunda Modell]

I think you were a victim of a false-positive with the anti-vandalism tech
that's been recently deployed in phabricator.
Unfortunately there isn't a log entry to verify that fact because the
logging function hasn't been deployed yet.

Regardless, I've re-enabled your account.

I apologize for the inconvenience, I'll make some adjustments to the filter
to hopefully prevent more false positives.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:28 PM MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> My Phabricator account has been disabled. I don't seem to have any e-mail
> about this action, so I'm mostly just curious who did it and why. If
> there's a log entry somewhere, that would be nice, but I don't know how
> transparent Phabricator or its admins are. I suppose it would also be nice
> to know if the person ever plans on undoing this unexplained disablement.
>
> I have over 56,000 unread e-mails in my "Phabricator" folder, so if I've
> overlooked an explanatory e-mail, please let me know!
>
> In the meantime, I guess I'll just, uhh, log out to view Phabricator.
>
> 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

[Alex Monk]

If there isn't any logging of this stuff how do we know it's your anti
vandalism bot and not a rogue admin?

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 01:17 Mukunda Modell, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you were a victim of a false-positive with the anti-vandalism tech
> that's been recently deployed in phabricator.
> Unfortunately there isn't a log entry to verify that fact because the
> logging function hasn't been deployed yet.
>
> Regardless, I've re-enabled your account.
>
> I apologize for the inconvenience, I'll make some adjustments to the filter
> to hopefully prevent more false positives.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:28 PM MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > My Phabricator account has been disabled. I don't seem to have any e-mail
> > about this action, so I'm mostly just curious who did it and why. If
> > there's a log entry somewhere, that would be nice, but I don't know how
> > transparent Phabricator or its admins are. I suppose it would also be
> nice
> > to know if the person ever plans on undoing this unexplained disablement.
> >
> > I have over 56,000 unread e-mails in my "Phabricator" folder, so if I've
> > overlooked an explanatory e-mail, please let me know!
> >
> > In the meantime, I guess I'll just, uhh, log out to view Phabricator.
> >
> > 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

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

[MZMcBride-2]

Mukunda Modell wrote:
>I think you were a victim of a false-positive with the anti-vandalism tech
>that's been recently deployed in phabricator.
>Unfortunately there isn't a log entry to verify that fact because the
>logging function hasn't been deployed yet.
>
>Regardless, I've re-enabled your account.
>
>I apologize for the inconvenience, I'll make some adjustments to the
>filter to hopefully prevent more false positives.

Ah, okay. Thank you for the quick reply and remedy! I appreciate it.

MZMcBride



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

[Amir Sarabadani-2]

I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC ban.
We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from
mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.

We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this
clarification is very much needed.

Best

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:56 AM MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mukunda Modell wrote:
> >I think you were a victim of a false-positive with the anti-vandalism tech
> >that's been recently deployed in phabricator.
> >Unfortunately there isn't a log entry to verify that fact because the
> >logging function hasn't been deployed yet.
> >
> >Regardless, I've re-enabled your account.
> >
> >I apologize for the inconvenience, I'll make some adjustments to the
> >filter to hopefully prevent more false positives.
>
> Ah, okay. Thank you for the quick reply and remedy! I appreciate it.
>
> 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

[MZMcBride-2]

Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC
>ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality
>from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.
>
>We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this
>clarification is very much needed.

Ah, I found the e-mail:

> Subject: Temporarily ban from phabricator
>
> Hello,
>
> We received reports about your comments in phabricator. While we
>encourage criticism and productive comments to improve the software,
>comments like "What the fuck" do not contribute to the discussion and
>turns the discussion from respectful criticism to folks swearing at other
>folks.
>
>
> We asked you to stop making such comments that do not contribute to the
>discussion. We have no choice to issue a temporarily ban from
>phabricator. We hope you notice this type of behaviour is not welcome in
>our technical spaces.
>
> Please read Code of conduct in depth:
>https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>
> 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.

This is re: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742>.

Greg Varnum created a mess, inappropriately closed a valid bug, and
removed its parent task because he didn't want to even acknowledge the
bug. I expressed exasperation with his actions, particularly gaslighting
volunteers (cf.
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090841.html>
), and Greg then removed himself as the task assignee and hasn't responded
on either the task or the wikimedia-l mailing list since. And there's
still German text prominently and confusingly at the top of
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>. Amazing.

MZMcBride



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

[Alex Monk]

So are we supposed to be careful about using 'wtf' now?

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 13:53 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> >I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC
> >ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality
> >from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.
> >
> >We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this
> >clarification is very much needed.
>
> Ah, I found the e-mail:
>
> > Subject: Temporarily ban from phabricator
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We received reports about your comments in phabricator. While we
> >encourage criticism and productive comments to improve the software,
> >comments like "What the fuck" do not contribute to the discussion and
> >turns the discussion from respectful criticism to folks swearing at other
> >folks.
> >
> >
> > We asked you to stop making such comments that do not contribute to the
> >discussion. We have no choice to issue a temporarily ban from
> >phabricator. We hope you notice this type of behaviour is not welcome in
> >our technical spaces.
> >
> > Please read Code of conduct in depth:
> >https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> >
> > 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.
>
> This is re: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742>.
>
> Greg Varnum created a mess, inappropriately closed a valid bug, and
> removed its parent task because he didn't want to even acknowledge the
> bug. I expressed exasperation with his actions, particularly gaslighting
> volunteers (cf.
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090841.html
> >
> ), and Greg then removed himself as the task assignee and hasn't responded
> on either the task or the wikimedia-l mailing list since. And there's
> still German text prominently and confusingly at the top of
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>. Amazing.
>
> 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

[Dan Garry]

On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
>

This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.

Dan

--
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[John Doe-27]

Why shouldn’t users be able to A) find out why their account was disabled?
(Original email list in clutter) 2) something as simple as WTF isn’t a
reasonable bannable offense. It wasn’t calling someone an F****. If the CoC
Committee is afraid of having their actions brought to life in a public
discussion, odds are their actions are not acceptable.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:23 AM Dan Garry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> >
>
> This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Alex Monk]

Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 14:23 Dan Garry, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> >
>
> This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[John Doe-27]

Alex, honestly as a passive observer I have seen CoC issues used as a
sledge hammer to force ideas thru and to shut down open civil discussions
and disagreements.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:29 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
> Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 14:23 Dan Garry, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> > >
> >
> > This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> > with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Garry
> > Lead Product Manager, Editing
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

[Aryeh Gregor-4]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So are we supposed to be careful about using 'wtf' now?

I don't think saying "WTF" to someone, especially spelled out, is
usually conducive to eliciting a constructive response from them.
Something like "Could you please explain why you did that?" is pretty
much always a better way to communicate.  (This is if it's directed at
their actions/code/etc., obviously, not at PHP or whatever.)

However, it is not at all clear that such a statement is against
anything written in the CoC.  At most it would be "offensive
comments", which is extremely vague.  I think it would be good if all
forms of non-constructive communication *were* against the CoC --
although not necessarily dealt with by bans -- but I don't see that
they are.

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

[Mukunda Modell]

Do you have any suggestions of what would be a more appropriate forum?

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:23 AM Dan Garry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> >
>
> This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Cyken Zeraux]

Banning of known contributors is not an issue to be hidden away. Sadly it
becomes a technical issue when contributors are being banned, as their work
and what they did does effect others. The issue cannot be seperated.
Looking through their history,
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/MZMcBride/
As far as I can tell this is admin overreach, the kind that mediawiki is
well known for in the development community. I see a lot of productivity
and focus upon issues, not any attacking of others. I would have hoped from
previous events that the environment would have gotten better, but yet
again I see a CoC being used as an excuse for over sensitivity and
censorship of discussion. The original actions MZM was responding to are
being ignored, while he is being banned for his response to it, which
doesn't actually attack anyone at all. The message of a CoC is supposed to
be one of 'be nice and have good discussions and do the right thing'. Which
is being violated by the very enforcers of it. If known contributors are
banned for simply saying 'WTF', then Ladsgroup also should be banned for
enforcing the CoC out of their personal feelings, and not one of doing the
right thing. The correct response to unproductive comments is to simply
delete them, and/or message the author about it. If they're actually
spamming them, then that's a spam issue not a CoC issue. If they attack
someone, then that's a CoC issue. I don't see that here.

I find it very counter productive to any public organization to hide way
bans and reasons for them if the actions the user did was public. That
leaves the decisions in the dark to everyone else. This is a development
space, and I expect far better from those who have power of it.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:11 AM Mukunda Modell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you have any suggestions of what would be a more appropriate forum?
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:23 AM Dan Garry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 8 August 2018 at 13:53, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, I found the e-mail: […]
> > >
> >
> > This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances
> > with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Garry
> > Lead Product Manager, Editing
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

[Isarra Yos]

I see two issues here:

1. Lack of logging of autodisabled accounts means that confusions such
as this may arise, but more especially, we appear to lack any way to
track for false positives of accounts from new users who do mean well,
who instead of going to someone to bring up the issue, simply give up at
that point - this is a major issue. It sounds like this feature will be
going out soon, though, so that's good.

2. What the fuck is going on with the Code of Conduct (committee)?

* How are variants of 'wtf' inherently problematic? They convey a
generally very relevant meaning ('I don't get this', 'this makes no
sense', 'this is just strange', etc), which, while it could be used as
part of a larger attack on a contributor, by itself is something we
/need/ to be able to say.

* Did anyone actually reach out to MZMcBride before blocking him with an
explanation as to why the 'wtf' was a problem, or ask him to otherwise
fix it or amend his behaviour? Immediate escalation to banning, unless
to prevent actively ongoing disruption, is nothing but disruptive. Users
need to be told why what they're doing is a problem and given a chance
to fix it on their own - only if they refuse or persist doing that same
thing after can that possibly become an instance actively ongoing
disruption and merit a ban, which given that this appears to have come
out of the blue only several days after the comment was made does not
even remotely seem to be the case here.

* Transparency and actionability of CoCC actions/warnings in general
seems to be very lacking. This doesn't just mean that it's an issue that
the information as to why action has been taken isn't available to
everyone for scrutiny (though it is - barring extremes, this is not just
the wikimedia way, but also basically the only way to ensure a body
doesn't wind up with effectively absolute power to do whatever with no
accountability whatsoever), but that said information often isn't even
available to the one being taken action against is downright
counterproductive, as they thus have nothing to go on. The warnings
become meaningless and unactionable (as was the case with the prior
warnings MZMcBride has received for unrelated... things), the blocks
just confusing (as this one is).

Ironically this also actually sort of comes back to the main issue with
the lack of logging - an established user like MZMcBride has recourse to
actually call out this and complain, thus bringing the issue to
attention. Any newcomer who gets bitten by this, however, is almost
certainly not going to... and the rest of us will never have any idea
anything even happened. So this needs to be addressed, not just for his
sake, but for everyone else we DON'T know about.

-I

On 08/08/18 13:01, Alex Monk wrote:

> So are we supposed to be careful about using 'wtf' now?
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 13:53 MZMcBride, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>> I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a CoC
>>> ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality
>> >from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.
>>> We rather not to discuss details of cases publicly but I feel this
>>> clarification is very much needed.
>> Ah, I found the e-mail:
>>
>>> Subject: Temporarily ban from phabricator
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We received reports about your comments in phabricator. While we
>>> encourage criticism and productive comments to improve the software,
>>> comments like "What the fuck" do not contribute to the discussion and
>>> turns the discussion from respectful criticism to folks swearing at other
>>> folks.
>>>
>>>
>>> We asked you to stop making such comments that do not contribute to the
>>> discussion. We have no choice to issue a temporarily ban from
>>> phabricator. We hope you notice this type of behaviour is not welcome in
>>> our technical spaces.
>>>
>>> Please read Code of conduct in depth:
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> 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.
>> This is re: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742>.
>>
>> Greg Varnum created a mess, inappropriately closed a valid bug, and
>> removed its parent task because he didn't want to even acknowledge the
>> bug. I expressed exasperation with his actions, particularly gaslighting
>> volunteers (cf.
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090841.html
>> ), and Greg then removed himself as the task assignee and hasn't responded
>> on either the task or the wikimedia-l mailing list since. And there's
>> still German text prominently and confusingly at the top of
>> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>. Amazing.
>>
>> 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

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

[Dan Garry]

On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
> Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.


Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this
list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any
involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.

Dan

--
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Lucas Werkmeister]

Can we please avoid jumping to conclusions like “Ladsgroup [was] enforcing
the CoC out of their personal feelings” or that this was an “immediate
escalation”, when the only information we have in this thread is a quoted
email that the author probably never intended to be a comprehensive summary
of the situation in the first place, and which was only relayed to this
list through a non-neutral party?

Cheers,
Lucas

Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Dan Garry <[hidden email]>:

> On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
> > Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.
>
>
> Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this
> list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any
> involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
Lucas Werkmeister
Software Developer (working student)

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: [phone]
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Isarra Yos]

This is actually a rather good point, and one I would argue also shows
why we need more transparency from the CoC committee in the first place
- lacking that, all the community at large can really go on is what the
accused provides, which does no favours toward the effectiveness of any
actions taken, especially if said actions really were justified.

-I

On 08/08/18 15:26, Lucas Werkmeister wrote:

> Can we please avoid jumping to conclusions like “Ladsgroup [was] enforcing
> the CoC out of their personal feelings” or that this was an “immediate
> escalation”, when the only information we have in this thread is a quoted
> email that the author probably never intended to be a comprehensive summary
> of the situation in the first place, and which was only relayed to this
> list through a non-neutral party?
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Dan Garry <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly?
>>> Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.
>>
>> Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this
>> list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any
>> involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> Dan Garry
>> Lead Product Manager, Editing
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

[Alex Monk]

Given the nature of the email it should be (treated as) comprehensive.

And in the absence (thus far) of the text being denied by the author, and
the recipient/forwarder being a known Wikimedian, I'm inclined to believe
that really was what was written.

Otherwise we would have almost no means to review decisions of the
committee.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 16:36 Isarra Yos, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is actually a rather good point, and one I would argue also shows
> why we need more transparency from the CoC committee in the first place
> - lacking that, all the community at large can really go on is what the
> accused provides, which does no favours toward the effectiveness of any
> actions taken, especially if said actions really were justified.
>
> -I
>
> On 08/08/18 15:26, Lucas Werkmeister wrote:
> > Can we please avoid jumping to conclusions like “Ladsgroup [was]
> enforcing
> > the CoC out of their personal feelings” or that this was an “immediate
> > escalation”, when the only information we have in this thread is a quoted
> > email that the author probably never intended to be a comprehensive
> summary
> > of the situation in the first place, and which was only relayed to this
> > list through a non-neutral party?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lucas
> >
> > Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Dan Garry <
> [hidden email]>:
> >
> >> On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions
> publicly?
> >>> Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.
> >>
> >> Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this
> >> list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any
> >> involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Garry
> >> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> >> Wikimedia Foundation
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

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

[Bináris]

That's what I called a very first world problem.
This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to
an international community.
It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it been
written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very discussion?).
But to ban a member of the technical community from the working environment
is really harmful.
Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it
publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community, not
by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word.
This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is
destructive.

Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc file
case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where most
Phabricatos users communicate,  this is a good place to discuss this case,
too. Publicity is good.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l