Talk:Code of Conduct/Archive 4

Creeping bureaucracy
Stop it, just stop it. Everyone has been complaining for years of the ever-expanding bureaucracy and mass of rules in Wikipedia(s), which frighten new contributors. Yet new policies and side-processes keep being proposed everywhere, as in this example. I don't see any benefit in this document and I hope the proposal will be withdrawn as soon as possible to save us the burden of discussing it. --Nemo 16:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of withdrawing the policy. The Wikimedia technical community is not part of Wikipedia.  It's true that English Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Civility and No personal attacks, but we don't.  There is no binding policy in this area for any online Wikimedia technical space.  So far from having a "mass of rules" in this area, we have essentially none. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This policy guarantees WMF control of volunteer discussion spaces (including spaces that are not operated by the WMF). This gives arbitrary control and is a potential censorship tool for employees or contractors to the WMF. There is no protection for a volunteer who might have fair cause to be raising critical or "non-positive" issues in a "technical space", there is no protection for whistle-blowers, there is no appropriate system of appeal, natural justice or governance for arbitrary actions taken under this code of conduct which may well be taken for debatable reasons of tone, misjudged jokes or confusion about who happens to be an employee using a non-employee account and is being mistaken for an unpaid volunteer (which happens all the time).

My reading of this policy is that it makes it possible for a WMF employee to choose to ban me forever from all the projects I am committed to as an unpaid volunteer, overruling community created project policies, for unknown reasons that may not even be provided to me so that I can correct any error, challenge them as a Joe Job attack, or ask for fair independent review. That makes it completely set against our values of putting the volunteer at the center of our projects. The idea that all Wikimedians should start officially reporting anyone "not being productive" I honestly find scary.

There is a need to do more about real harassment, this CoC confuses arbitrary allegations of "disruption" or being "non-positive" with harassment, and seems to make no attempt to ensure volunteers can appeal to elected volunteer peers for fair assessment of complex allegations of being thought by some to be disruptive, but not a criminal case that should be taken to the police if there is evidence to present, rather than unprovable allegations. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My reading of this policy is that it makes it possible for a WMF employee to choose to ban me forever from all the projects I am committed to as an unpaid volunteer - If we're talking about you personally, I'm not sure I see what you mean. Most of your activity is on commons, which unless I misunderstand severely, is quite out of scope of this policy. Maybe this policy applies to tool labs (Does it? Its not entirely clear on that point), which would probably affect you more significantly. It would apply to in-person events, but people could already be banned without much appeal from such events anyways, so this is not much new on that front. (On the more general point though, I agree, fairness in enforcement is an important issue that is being hand-waved). Bawolff (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just re-read the policy. Since my last reading the line "The Community Advocacy team also has the authority to investigate behavioral issues and recommend WMF global bans for individuals." has been added. So I guess I see where your coming from more. Bawolff (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may need to read the policy again. The CA team has always had that power - this policy does nothing about that. What it does is set out behavioural guidelines for technical spaces. Your objection to the policy around it chilling volunteers ignores an important line from the actual policy; "a healthy amount of constructive criticism and vibrant debate helps to improve our software and is encouraged". This is nothing to do with critiquing software changes in the sense of the community giving feedback on new extensions or features; this is to do with how people behave on phabricator, on gerrit, on wikitech-l, and making sure we have a welcoming community. I agree, for what it's worth, that "not being productive" is a bit vague, and probably needs fixing up. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The CA team does not have the power to ban users from #mediawiki, #pywikibot, etc. Legoktm (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wctaiwan} has removed "not being productive". I think they're right we don't need it.  It is from Bug management/Phabricator etiquette and I think the intention was/is to refer to cases where interpersonal problems or edit-warring were negatively affecting productivity, but it's true there are a lot of other causes of non-productivity, so it doesn't fit the policy as well as I would like. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no protection for a volunteer who might have fair cause to be raising critical or "non-positive" issues in a "technical space", there is no protection for whistle-blowers. The policy doesn't do anything to threaten these forms of contribution.  If you have ideas about an explicit appeal process, please make suggestions.  Ultimately, though, any WMF employee is responsible to their manager and eventually the board.  I doubt managers and the board would allow the kind of abuse by employees you're hypothesizing.  The part about "seek to make our technical spaces a respectful and positive" is a preamble.  As Bawolff noted, this policy does not apply to Commons (except maybe software development there, e.g. Common.js and gadget development). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on, so this Code does apply to Commons then as you have listed examples? Specifically as I have published some of my bot code on Commons, and I use commons to discuss technical issues of batch uploads, then those discussions are now retrospectively controlled by this Code. If this is the case then there needs to be a Commons policy proposal. --Fæ (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said 'maybe'. This is still just a draft, and the draft does not mention Commons.  I'll let other people weigh in on whether they would like to explicitly cover on-wiki code workspaces (like gadgets, etc.) (outside of MediaWiki.org)  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope the scope of the Code can be made completely unambiguous. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to this applying to individual wiki Common.js. I don't think we legitimately have the authority to make policy for non-tech wikis or any of their pages. If someone from a content wiki comes to mw.org asking for help, or a channel like #wikimedia-dev, then this policy should apply, but pages on individual wikis should be the province of that wiki (Or something agreed upon at meta). Bawolff (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be against it, and the current document already reflects that the virtual list is complete (there is no 'including but not limited' in the list of virtual spaces), so Common.js on other wikis (and similar things) is not included. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's utterly ridiculous that its inclusion was ever considered even remotely possible by anyone. --Nemo 07:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * i agree with nemo on the first sentence: stop it. why? the terms of use require clearly: "civility" elaborating it, including measures "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms." the discussion above shows imo only one thing: we have so many rules that even employees of the WMF have difficulties to know and understand them. the best is, the rules are nowadays written using so complicated language that we need a "human readable summary". if not humans, i am asking myself who else it could apply to and who else would read then the "real text". monkeys? computers? trees? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This draft is far more specific than just saying "Be civil" or "Don't harass". There are many reasons we still need a Code of Conduct for technical spaces despite the Terms of Use, including:
 * The TOU do not define 'harassment' at all (even as a 'including but not limited to'), which means people may be unclear what constitutes harassment.
 * The TOU only addresses very specific kinds of disruption, while allowing other kinds.
 * The TOU is missing several specific provisions applicable to in-person events (of which there are now a fair number in the technical space), for instance regarding unwanted photography and unwanted attention.
 * The TOU does not address issues like offensive comments and personal attacks. It actually doesn't even require you to be civil.  Both the summary and the in-text part about civility ("We encourage you to be civil") are not binding.
 * It has only narrow provisions about privacy (only forbidding violating the law, or soliciting information). There is nothing forbidding doxxing people in unethical but legal ways.


 * But perhaps most importantly, the TOU can only be enforced by the WMF, and only in very limited ways (mostly limited to bans and legal action). The Code of Conduct can address cases where action needs to be taken, but it either doesn't violate the TOU, doesn't require a ban, or doesn't rise to the level where the TOU would be enforced in practice.
 * This is actually explicitly what the TOU intends to happen: "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies." You'll note the TOU also makes clear that warning/reprimanding (an important way of dealing with misconduct that doesn't require a ban) is primarily meant to be handled by local communities. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Other examples from industry
There's a nice code of conduct from the Electron project here that has a prominent link in the project's readme. Niedzielski (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, The TODO code of conduct actively puts marginalized people in harm’s way. (...) This Code of Conduct is essentially legalese to protect the corporations and their cis straight white men contributors from accusations of sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and with the recent EEOC ruling, homophobic and transphobic discrimination. - https://modelviewculture.com/news/todo-group-and-open-source-codes-of-conduct Valhallasw (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That blog post falls very far from the standards of constructive and respectful communication it supposedly promotes, and is full of falsehoods (for example, check the pull request it links to and compare the actual discussion with the way it's characterized in the post). I don't think it should be taken seriously. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another resource which helps explain why codes of conduct can help, is https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ . Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Safe spaces, incivility, and passive aggression
It seems that there's general agreement that a lot of outright "in your face" harassment on gender/sexuality/racial/religious/etc grounds is to be avoided -- which makes me happy to hear -- but it doesn't surprise me that there are more negative reactions over the idea of disruption being a problem than .... any other reaction at all.

This doesn't surprise me because passive-agressive dismissive incivility is absolutely rampant in our community [our community == everyone involved in Wiki*edia, yes if you are reading this it includes you], as well as many other FOSS and FOSS-like projects. I know I'm a part of that civility problem too, and try to avoid it but don't always succeed.

I really like the idea of a positive code of conduct that prescribes respect, civility, and a mindfulness that we're working on tools for people to use... Being actually productive is important, and with our communications channels it's easy to get sidetracked into bikeshedding, "well-actually"ing, "RTFM"ing, and accusations of who's the most disruptive.

The most radical act isn't pointing out others' failings, it's admitting that you're part of the problem, and that changing is required. I know I need to change for the better, and I hope you all will join on that journey. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was a fan of the safe space policy going into effect for developer events, and that has since been extended first to Wikimania, then other Wikimedia events, and now recipients of WMF grants. With the board, Lila, CA, and others stating that looking into ways to address community collegiality is a priority for this year - this seems like a logical effort for the developer community. I agree it is not perfect, but I have yet to see an online community policy that was. ;) I endorse the idea of proceeding with refinements based on this page's discussion - but not delaying things for months and months in an attempt to achieve a perfection that will likely never come. However, Brion is correct that we must all also own up to our own role in this problem - and yes - there is a problem. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 02:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can admit that sometimes I have gotten more heated than I should have.  None of us are perfect.  Hopefully, this serves as a reminder for us to stay respectful. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A tangent on wording; almost anything written online can be interpreted as passive aggressive. This is especially true in an international and multilingual context. For example written British English (at least for anyone educated before the 1980s) leans to self-effacing to be polite, this careful politeness in an online modern or Americanocentric context is easily interpreted as slyness, sarcasm, or passive aggressive. A general rule of thumb should be to double-check, as sometimes simple good faith and echoing back your reading in plain English, will quickly diffuse what might appear to someone from a different cultural background to be passive aggressive or annoyingly sarcastic. --Fæ (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Role of the document
I feel like this code of conduct is trying to be a set of guidelines for best social practices (no off-topic comments, discuss things in the open) and a set of binding rules (no harassment) simultaneously, with no clear delineation. This should be addressed either by structuring things differently and making it clear which things would lead to consequences, or just splitting it into a binding policy and a non-binding set of guidelines. The binding parts would also need to be concrete (in defining unacceptable behaviour) to be enforceable.

In what's been defined so far, I think the part about rejecting patches should just be removed—given the precedent of some developers being very determined to push through features against consensus, people really shouldn't be punished for rejecting patches, provided they do so without personal attacks and such. (Also, please don't use words like "catalytic".) wctaiwan (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of it is meant to be binding with the possible exception of the first sentence, which is kind of a preamble laying the groundwork. I feel like "Communicate about technology in public where possible" is relevant to the document, even though it's kind of non-actionable due to "where possible", because this is an important part of the MediaWiki ethos.  "Comments should be made with the intention of constructively contributing to our technologies." is actionable; it means e.g. comments that are purely unconstructive attacks are not appropriate.  I would expect this would not be enforced for one-off insignificant off-topic comments, but only to deal with major disruption.  It doesn't say patches can't be rejected; a lot of patches need to be rejected, for valid reasons (product, technical, or both).  It just says "consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches" (emphasis added) is not appropriate. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it should be a policy that communication happens in the open (the foundation may wish to mandate that for WMF developers, but this shouldn't be binding on volunteer developers). Unconstructive attacks may be actionable, but as written it's too vague and too broad (e.g. foundation PMs may argue that debating whether a feature is wanted at all is "unconstructive"). "Unwarranted" also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
 * I'm not fundamentally opposed to covering both best practices and actionable misconduct on the same page (e.g. first list the goals of a CoC and document best practices, and then list what is considered actionable), but I think the latter needs to be concrete and separate for it to be enforceable at all. wctaiwan (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that banning someone from one or more MediaWiki forums (the only real enforcement available for these rules) would presumably make them more likely to communicate with others privately. Yaron Koren (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the only enforcement mechanism given. It explicitly makes clear that in some cases, just talking to them is the best way to go, and in other cases, issuing a formal warning may help.  Even in the case of bans, there are different types given. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider a warning to be enforcement, but that might just be a semantic issue. Yaron Koren (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mandate solely public communication for anyone, WMF or otherwise. It just expresses that you should default to make it public (then consider the alternative, where appropriate), rather than go the other way. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as I said above, while I think the "Communicate about technology in public where possible" line is relevant, it's not really actionable due to 'where possible'. I don't have my heart set on keeping it. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) My concern is less about the specifics and more about the enforceability of a code of conduct that is deliberately designed not to be specific. You mention the role of discretion below. I'm fine with, say, discretion as to whether to give someone another chance, or whether something constitutes a pattern of disruptive behaviour, but as it is there isn't enough clarity when it comes to the line between best practices and actual rules. wctaiwan (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Krenair put back "We also pledge to communicate about MediaWiki/Wikimedia technology in public where possible" and made it even stronger. I don't have a strong preference on the first part (though I respect the fact that it was removed before, and understand why), but I think "All written non-security-related discussion about changes to MediaWiki core and extensions and skins which are deployed to Wikimedia sites or included in the MediaWiki tarball releases must be public." is way too strong and I've removed it.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what a "pledge" means in the context of a code of conduct. Actually, I have no idea what "we pledge" means here at all - most people aren't pledging anything, so it just sounds like false information. Yaron Koren (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree with the importance of public communication, I'd rather keep the CoC within the core goal of "making participation in Wikimedia technical projects a respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone". Someone not communicating publicly will not automatically incur in disrespect or harassment. I would leave it out.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Quim. We should keep this document tightly focused on identifying prohibited forms of harassment, rather than general good practices. I added a part about the Wikimedia mission because I think it strengthens the case that prohibiting harassment is core to our values, but on the other hand I think communicating in public is a different principle and should be discussed elsewhere.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. I think that a separate document on positive ways that we communicate respect for each other and for the movement (somewhat like the positive portions of the Phabricator etiquette) is a very good idea and that this would fit well in there, but I agree that it would be better to focus this on our core goal. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case I'll go ahead and remove it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement in new draft
The enforcement and reporting are now way more detailed, which is both a good and a bad thing. It's good because there's less ambiguity, but that much text may distract from the rest of the document. Also, since it comes from multiple sources, there are consistency and redundancy issues to work out. We may want to separate it out to a subpage (both as a break-out page if the overall Code of Conduct is approved, and for discussion now). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (((Comments have been moved to "Right to appeal"))).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The current section Enforcement contains two lists of "possible responses: that, well, look too similar. Wouldn't it be better to consolidate a single list, and then have a new section "Appeal" with the details of the appeal process?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which two lists are you referring to? The "For a simple case" is for actions a single member can take on their own.  The "Possible responses to a reported breach of the Code of Conduct may include" is a list of things the full committee can do.  I've tried to clarify this. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification on the scope
I'm watching this discussion since someone posted a link in Commons' village pump. At first, I didn't see anything concerning to my activities there (my main project) and wonder how it affects a Commoner. Now I saw more Commoners raising concerns here. So I re-read the draft. It has two parts of scope; physical and virtual. "Physical" is noway relevant to Commons or any other WM projects as we are not physically meeting any. In "virtual", I see only "MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad". No other WM project like Commons is mentioned. My understanding is also a WM project like MediaWiki has no control over such projects. General policies like Global ban must be defined in Meta. So I wonder from where these concerns are coming?

I can understand MW has the right to block somebody if s/he misbehaved to a volunteer here on/off-mediawiki. But off wiki activities need investigations by some higher authorities like Arbcom. Commons doesn't such a setup and many people make benefit from it. But it is a "common" problem and not relevant here.

I also see "global ban policy" is mentioned in the draft. It only means people who apply global ban can consider the reasons which result a block here too, while considering a GB against a user. It is quite logical and I see nothing particular in it.

Am I correct? Let me correct; if I'm wrong. J ee 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is basically right. Some of the prior questions and comments were when it said, "virtual (including but not limited to MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad)".  Now it says, "virtual (MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad)" (no "but not limited to", so no ambiguity about which web sites (or parts of them) it applies to).  If there are problems in virtual technical spaces that are not listed here, the policy could be amended after further discussion. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mattflaschen for the clarification. Tgr's suggestion below is also very good. It is other project's responsibility to monitor their lists and IRC channels. J ee 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that technical mailing lists are the ones listed under Mailing_lists/Overview, and technical IRC channels are the ones listed under IRC/Channels? Those lists seem fairly comprehensive (and if not, they should probably be fixed anyway). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a lot is missing from both those lists. Bawolff (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but it is easier and better to update those pages than let people guess. The rebased text says "This is a code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces." I think we should spell out those spaces, right there after a colon or somewhere below. The list: mediawiki.org, wikitech.wikimedia.org, wikimedia.phabricator.org, gerrit.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia technical mailing lists, and Wikimedia technical IRC channels. Is the intention to keep this CoC for online spaces only, since events are already covered by the Friendly Space policy? If so, that should be explained as well, for context (now it's in the See also, I think it should be integrated to the text).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's explicitly for physical spaces as well ("Project spaces can be both physical, such as hackathons and other technical gatherings"), and has been since the beginning of the draft (though the wording has evolved). As far as IRC, I'm not sure whether it's better to use the topic (which can be controlled by the channel) or a Meta list that anyone can edit. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Right to appeal
The right to appeal has been mentioned in several places. As a general principle, of course anybody being accused of breaching the CoC must have the right to appeal. The first ones having to excel at Conduct are the ones using it to file a complaint and the ones using it to enforce it on someone. The exact implementation of the appeal process can be defined only after the processes for starting and handling a complaint has been defined, though. For instance, complaints filed privately probably will have an appeal process that is equally private, unless one of the parts wants to bring the issue to the public. Let's agree first on how to file a complaint and how to handle it?

Let me add that the root of the questions about an appeal process seem to be based on the assumption or fear that this CoC and its enforcement will be authoritative and unfair by nature. If this is the concern, then let's focus on this concern in the first place. This CoC and its application in the Wikimedia technical spaces can only become a reality if the Wikimedia technical community embraces it and maintains it. If there is anything suspicious and unfair in this CoC, it will not be approved, it will not become a policy.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (((moved from "Enforcement in new draft"))) Also, "Only permanent resolutions (such as bans) may be appealed" (proposal in the current draft) should be clarified. Is it intended that only permanent actions (e.g. lifetime ban) can be appealed, or any ban (possibly temporary)?  This should also clarify how the reporter's appeal rights are (un)affected. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's intended that only permanent actions can be appealed, but that the reporter's appeal/feedback rights are unaffected. I'm not terribly attached to this; I'd also be ok with something like "actions with effects that last for longer than three months" as well. The things I'd like to see balanced are not wasting the committee's time with specious appeals (such that the second step to any given action taken becomes "deal with the inevitable appeal") and allowing the flexibility to deal with genuine mistakes, particularly cases where the violator is using the CoC enforcement mechanisms as a way to further harassment of their target and the committee does not initially recognize that. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think three months is a good compromise. I've added that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think this sounds odd: "Only resolutions (such as bans) that last 3 months or longer may be appealed by the reported offender." I think everybody should have the right to appeal, and the Committee should have the tools to avoid that this right is being abused in bad faith. For instance: "Resolutions may be appealed. For simple cases, the committee may decide to start the enforcement during the appealing process to avoid an artificial obstruction to the process. In more complex cases implying a ban of three months or more, the enforcement must wait until the appeal has been resolved."--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It feels like something is missing in the current draft -- notifying or talking to the reported offender. If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like the Code of Conduct Committee reviews the report and makes a decision, and the only time the reported offender is mentioned is the line about being able to appeal a 3+ month long ban. Sometimes the evidence is entirely public and easy to corroborate, and sometimes it's not. When it's not, you probably want to talk to the person and see what they have to say about it. Maybe that's obvious and doesn't need to be in the policy? DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, it has to be done carefully.  You don't want a scenario like:
 * Someone feels they are being harassed, and reports it.
 * The Committee contacts the alleged offender to get their side of the story, naming the reporter (who did not expect to be named).
 * The Committee ends up taking only minor action (or none at all).
 * The offender retaliates against the reporter for the report.


 * The jQuery CoC is ambiguous on this front. The Reporting page says, "All reports will be kept confidential. In some cases we may determine that a public statement will need to be made. If that's the case, the identities of all victims and reporters will remain confidential unless those individuals instruct us otherwise.", but the Enforcement Manual says, "The committee is empowered to act on the jQuery Foundation's behalf in contacting any individuals involved to get a more complete account of events."  Contacting those individuals could itself be a breach of confidentiality.  I added a sentence that tries to balance these concerns (needing the facts and avoiding revealing information against the reporter's wishes). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if enforcement begins during the appeal process, your proposal does not do anything to deter people from appealing every single case (no matter how minor the penalty). We have to consider ECT's time. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ECT's time is a factor I'm considering, trust me. I worry more about people complaining for having no right to appeal than about people trying to game the process. It is likely that the latter will put themselves in evidence with little community support. As for the former... they have a chance to drag more time and energy from all of us and, who knows, maybe even for a good reason because everybody can make mistakes, a committee too. (Note: I'd rather leave this discussion about appealing later, as proposed at ).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Matt -- I agree with the need to strike a balance between involving the reported offender and not violating the reporter's confidentiality. That's a good point, and I think your changes to that section make a lot of sense. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

First line of enforcement
I would like to float an alternative proposal for first line enforcement. I suggest that there should be a small group (probably either 3 or 5) of people from our technical community (both volunteers and staff, based on their involvement in the tech community). There would be an OTRS or mailing list address pointing to that group. I think the steps would be something like that:


 * 1) Someone emails e.g. techcoc@wikimedia.org, or contacts one of the members on IRC.  If it's OTRS, I think the email could auto-create a ticket, and maybe for IRC it could be created manually from the web interface?
 * 2) For a simple case (e.g. first offense, minor harassment in a single space), a single member could:
 * 3) * Defer to the space itself (e.g. MediaWiki.org admins in the case of an incident on MediaWiki.org, or event organizers for a hackathon), if they seem best-equipped to handle it.
 * 4) * Issue a public or private warning directly.
 * 5) * Decide to take no action (logging why and notifying the reporter)
 * 6) For a more complicated case (e.g. repeat offense, when a ban looks like like it will be required, or where there is cross-space harassment), the initial responder could ask other members of the group for feedback, and can also bring in people from the spaces involved (e.g. if it happens on both MediaWiki.org and IRC, bring in involved admins and IRC contacts).
 * 7) In case of even more complicated or urgent matters, or if the group is unable to reach a decision (e.g. the minority in the group objects to the decision), it can be escalated.
 * 8) After the initial outcome (which would always be logged, even if it's just 'deferred to XYZ' or 'no action taken'), the reporter should be notified.
 * 9) The reporter always will be notified of the initial outcome, and has the right to appeal (see separate discussion).
 * 10) If public action is taken on the basis of the CoC (whether by the group or by local maintainers of the space), the alleged offender also has the right to appeal.
 * 11) Appeals would be taken to the same group that the committee could choose to escalate to (which group is under discussion).

Part of the goal here is the person who feels harassed does not need to look up different policies and points of contact depending which space it happened in. They can always contact the same email (or IRC). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest that all participants in the first-level group be required to be identified to the WMF. Exactly how the group is formed could be determined if people otherwise support this proposal. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good start. I think that the Engineering Community Team is a logical group for the second level response. I'd like to see this group made up of WMF staff, technical volunteers, and one representative from ECT, since ECT has considerable knowledge about community structures and dynamics. I think that an email ought to be a sufficient place to report to--IRC is likely to be more complicated to monitor, and I don't think it's necessary as long as emailed reports get a prompt response. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference to keep an IRC point of contact. People might still informally report stuff there, but the email can be the definitive way. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Some notes and suggestions:
 * Anonymizing reports are terribly important here. Specially when it comes to sexual harassment. we need more explicit statements on this to ensure people to feel more comfortable. I think CA can help us.
 * Yes, this should be addressed in the draft. Maybe, in case of private harassment, not allowing release of the victim/reporter's name (even in the course of a public apology) without the reporter's consent.  In the case of public harassment (at least where it is not/can not be oversighted), the victim/reporter is already known, and since it happened publicly it can sometimes be important to speak out. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In lots of cases people already made contact with local maintainer of space (e.g. someone harassed me in mediawiki.org and initially I will contact admins of mediawiki.org but in some cases they don't handle it well. Lack of experience from admins, influential friends, being "too" valuable, etc.) So we need to determine a way to handle such cases.
 * Yes, this is a good argument for having a central point of contact (techcoc), plus an appeal process in case even that fails. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Punishment vs. protecting the system: Imagine I offended someone in pywikibot code review. What is the best action? Do you think I should be banned for a while or I should be stripped off from my owner rights or both? this states "Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team." Should we have something like this?
 * We have language about this from Contributor Covenant now. Not sure how much we'll tweak this; we will probably need a Wikimedia-specific enforcement section at any rate. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of comments: you didn't define anything about this. e.g. the CoC says: "Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct. By adopting this Code of Conduct, project maintainers commit themselves to fairly and consistently applying these principles to every aspect of managing this project." Ladsgroup (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Body size
We don't have anything related to body size, or this falls under physical appearance? It is important to me since I was born with a medical condition that makes me super skinny and I was called names a lot in school and people told me horrible things that continues today, It never happened in mediawiki space but I can imagine the possibility Ladsgroup (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are only examples in this CoC. Harassment may be alleged for whatever someone believes is harassment which easily includes appearance, medical conditions or the perception of these (this is how the police explained their approach to me in the UK, i.e. it's not their job to interpret what is or is not harassment, they take seriously any complaint and document it for further action). --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a reason it says, "Examples of harassment include but are not limited to"; it's meant to cover the most common issues, but it recognizes it might miss something. Let's go ahead and add body size, though, just for clarity. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed "personal appearance, body size" to "physical appearance" as this seemed less awkward. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

this edit removed the explicit mention of body size, instead amalgamating it into "physical appearance".

While I understand the tendency towards brevity and efficiency, I think this is worth calling out. Body size makes a regular appearance in both tropes about engineers and harassment of people within technical spaces, with a frequency that most forms of "physical appearance"-based harassment do not. One of the things we are trying to do with this document is recognise that vagueness and catch-all terms in codes of conduct or behavioural guidelines tend to serve to provide wiggle-room when there is a violation, and that specificity is key to ensuring both that users are aware of what they are not permitted to do, and that community groups have a clear guideline to enforce that they can move on with confidence. With that in mind, and given the prominence of physical size as a trope and tool for harassment, calling it out seems perfectly sensible to me. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially given that Ladsgroup brought this up as well. I've put it back. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this makes at least the third case of attempting to address an unproven problem. Ladsgroup specifically stated that body size-related harassment had never happened in Wikimedia technical spaces to him. Similarly, there's no evidence of people encouraging other people to harass (Kaldari's suggestion above) or unwarranted rejection of patches (also discussed above). There seems to be a worrying amount of tilting at windmills here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it didn't happen before that doesn't mean it won't happen and it doesn't mean it is not worth addressing in the CoC Ladsgroup (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you tell a country where there had never been a bank robbery that there shouldn't be a law against it, since it's an "unproven problem"? Of course not, since everyone knows it happens in other places.  Similarly, we know these problems happen in other similar places. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you able to name such a country? --Nemo 06:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any new country, like South Sudan, on day 1.  Sane countries don't wait for a well-known crime to occur, then pass a law against it.  That would be silly. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I think it is better to be more explicit than implicit describing the types of harassment we want to address in this CoC. The first goal of this document is to prevent problems, and a good measure to prevent problems is to spell them out. Let's not get stuck in these details, a good enough list is a good enough list. If these lists need one item more or one item less, having this discussion will be a lot simpler when the CoC is approved rather than now that we have many fronts open.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

From the perspective of a maintainer
In other sections, others have already clarified why a code of conduct is a good idea from the perspective of potential contributors and victims, but I'd also like to share the perspective of a maintainer. On the Pywikibot mailing list, we have had our fair share of behavior that is not OK, but I've always been reluctant to actually put the users on moderate, or to ban them from the mailing list altogether. Why? I wasn't sure whether that was the right thing to do, and I was afraid of the backlash that would probably follow.

Having an explicit policy makes policing behavior also much easier. From one side, it's much easier to say 'hey, you are violating the code of conduct', and from the other side, having the policy means we //have to// intervene. It's much easier to act on a previously agreed policy than acting off the cuff. Let's make clear rules, and let's use them to make this environment more fun to work in. Valhallasw (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mailing list etiquettes already exist. --Nemo 07:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Mailing lists/Guidelines? I added this link to See also.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior
In the beginning of the "unacceptable behavior" section, the phrase "unacceptable behavior" (which I just changed to "Behavior that is unacceptable") linked to the Terms of Use. What exactly are we trying to communicate with the link? That we consider all the behavior mentioned to be harassment and therefore prohibited by the terms? If so, we should make that statement explicit (and check that it's legally okay too, although I'm not sure the WMF legal team could give us an opinion).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was taken from meta:Grants:Friendly Space Expectations. My reading was that it is a reminder that harassment is already legally prohibited for Wikimedia-hosted projects, rather than a statement on the specific behavior listed here. If it's confusing, I'm fine with removing it. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The link is inappropriate, in my opinion. I already removed it once. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the link to the "See also" section as that seemed reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good place for it, especially as this applies to spaces outside of WMF resources. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarify "outside of WMF resources"? --Nemo 07:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The technical IRC channels, for example; the WMF doesn't "own" those. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment
In the "Unacceptable behavior" section, we start of by saying that unacceptable behavior includes a variety of things, one of which is harassment. We then continue by saying harassment includes a whole list of things, which includes all the other unacceptable behaviors we listed in the first place. How about we simplify this by saying the following?

All forms of harassment are unacceptable in Wikimedia technical spaces, both online and in person. This includes but is not limited to the following behaviors: —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate or unwanted communication, including on-wiki messages, private or public IRC messages, email, texts, and chats.
 * Sustained disruption of discussion, talks or work, for example by personal attacks, constant interruption, trolling or consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches.


 * I see what you mean. I think it's important to state that we do not want our technical spaces to include "sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults", regardless of whether they rise to the level of harassment or not--even if these things are drive-by one-off comments, they make technical spaces less welcoming for many people. How about mentioning that harassment can include any of the above and removing them from the list of potentially harassing behaviors instead? --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look now--I think this version is clearer. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that looks good. I'm going to rearrange it to put the section about non-harassment unacceptable behavior below the list of examples of harassment.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. Someone else already did that.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit summary re-adding "rejection of patches" seems to go out of its way to point out that it's happening elsewhere. I don't know of this ever being a problem in Gerrit or Phabricator or Special:CodeReview. Why should this be included? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's a good thing to build processes around problems we have seen in similar spaces with similar dynamics and similar base populations so that we have a way of handling them if and when they happen. This question or something very likes it comes up a lot, particularly in regards to codes of conduct; "why do we need to protect X? I've never seen X happen". And the answer is that if X does happen in communities similar to ours it's hubris to believe it couldn't happen here, and we should protect against that - and that the lack of the appearance of X, when there is no process for X, can also be indicative that the lack of process caused an absence of any ability to productively surface it. Or to put it another way, a problem without reporting looks the same as no problem at all. Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds very much like you're trying to prove a negative. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Again, this happens very commonly in communities very like ours; I'm not trying to prove a negative, I'm trying to avoid the hubris of assuming we should not ward against things we have seen appear in similar spaces. If it was entirely a thought experiment it would be potentially problematic because then we're just adding stuff in an unfounded way, but by definition worrying about things identified in near-identical entities is not unfounded, it is very well founded. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit lost in this discussion. Are you proposing a specific change in the "Unacceptable behavior" section?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Strings attached
I removed this text about trying to coerce users into apologizing through threats and intimidation. Ironholds seemed to want a discussion about it. Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but it seems/seemed pretty obvious to me that this type of behavior is inappropriate and I don't think we should be encouraging it. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what it says. What it says is "The group may, if it chooses, attach "strings" to this request: for example, the group may ask a violator to apologize in order to retain their membership on a mailing list or their Phabricator privileges." That's not "threats or intimidation"; it's saying that in order for you to retain the privileges that you have after violating the behavioural standards that the group has, you must demonstrate that you understand that you violated these standards and that doing so was wrong. This is pretty fair, to me (I'm not sure what cultural difference there is here; yes, I'm a European, but I've also been living in the United States for quite a while now) - such a demonstration serves as evidence that misbehaviour will not occur again. It's also pretty standard; looking just at enwiki, almost every discussion around unblocks and unbans requires some assurance that the person who was sanctioned understands what they did wrong. Requiring that understanding to continue is...precisely what we do, we're just shuffling the order here. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is from the jQuery enforcement manual. I think realistically this is something that is already done in certain situations informally (and not just in tech communities); they just chose to spell it out. Without this, either it could still happen informally, or the only option is to directly ban them in a case where the string option would be considered. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any problem with requiring users to apologize as a condition of their remaining part of the community. The whole point of this code is to provide a mechanism for coercing toxic users to either change their behavior or leave the community. We can certainly argue about what makes a user toxic or how the mechanism should work, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a reasonable degree of coercion is the whole point.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the strings language. I kind of feel like it reduces the value of an apology when it is so forced. Apologies should be free admissions of wrong doing. I feel like a forced apology doesn't shows that the user understands s/he violated standards, it shows the person understands that they are being required to apologize in order to continue to participate. However I think its fine for the committee to take the presence of an apology (Or any other action the offender takes to make amends/demonstrate regret) into account when deciding appropriate reprimands or to strongly suggest that somebody apologize. Bawolff (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Demanding apology is an old antipattern. Apologies are valuable because they signal a change of beliefs (as opposed to a mere change of behavior). By making them obligatory most of that value is lost. Besides, giving a group the power to force belief changes is kind of creepy.
 * Asking the violator to promise that they will honor the code in the future (possibly as a condition of lifting the ban), which is the enwiki practice Ironholds was referring to, is a very different thing and entirely reasonable. Although I am not sure if there is any benefit in doing it in public. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a required apology is not a 100% sincere apology. As I said above though, I think these kinds of required apologies are common in other areas of life.  That said, I don't object to removing the strings part, and changing it to something like "The committee may recommend that someone apologize, and take into account whether they do so.  They also may require that someone explicitly agrees to comply with the code of conduct before unbanning them." Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Trolling
I removed trolling as it seems to be problematic to define. I wouldn't want to see rickrolling to be considered a violation of this document, for example. I've also heard some people reclaim and embrace the term trolling as a positive behavior/attribute/skill. If someone wants to re-insert this, I think it first warrants discussion and perhaps a clearer definition. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]". I think that firmly falls within the set of behavior we don't want to see. In addition, it is noted explicitly in the Contributor Convenant, so I think it makes more sense to place it back while the subject is being discussed. As for Rick Rolling: I think that generally is also counterproductive, and thus something we don't want in our technical spaces either. Valhallasw (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling is defined in Wikimedia terms at Manual:Glossary and What is a troll?, and in case of doubt Internet troll is also an interesting read. I think in most cases it is a behavior simple to recognize. "consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches" is not an equivalent of trolling but a much more narrower case, therefore I think that we should bring "trolling" back instead.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and let me say that people reclaiming trolling as "a positive behavior/attribute/skill" have no place here. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valhallasw. There was unanimous consent to start from the Contributor Covenant.  While we have made changes from there, 'trolling' is one of the few things the concise Contributor Covenant addresses, which shows they view it as important.  I agree it is important to forbid, and I see no reason to remove it from our versions.  Rick-rolling is a prank, not trolling.  While pranks can waste time (which is why I try to restrict mine to April Fool's), pranking is not the same thing as trolling. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-adding it, Matt. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling is not defined anywhere and has never proved useful as an explicit charge to make to anyone, hence I support the removal of its mention. What is a troll? is a mere essay for a reason. --Nemo 06:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is, are the behaviors identified as "trolling" already mentioned in clear terms (making the addition of "trolling" redundant) or is "trolling" covering other behaviors that are still not mentioned? I would be fine removing that single word, but only if the behaviors we want to address are well covered in the CoC. Currently we have:
 * Inappropriate or unwanted communication
 * Sustained disruption
 * Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments
 * deliberate intimidation
 * derogatory comments
 * personal attacks
 * Anything missing?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF: If we remove "trolling," as I think we should, we would be left with:

The following behaviors are also unacceptable, regardless of whether they rise to the level of harassment and whether online or in person: inappropriate use of sexual language or imagery, insults, and other unprofessional conduct.

I think "unprofessional conduct" is similarly problematic as it's incredibly vague. And is "insults" needed? Are insults different from "personal attacks" or "offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments"? I'd be inclined to remove these three pieces (maybe moving "insults" up into a bullet, though it seems unnecessary). That would leave us with:

The following behaviors are also unacceptable, regardless of whether they rise to the level of harassment and whether online or in person: inappropriate use of sexual language or imagery.

This seems pretty awkward/weird to be in its own separate paragraph. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Trolling used to have somewhat positive connotations back in the newsgroup era, but has that changed pretty definitively since then. Partly because its meaning changed to encompass any kind of deliberate manipulation, and to imply malicious intent; and partly because most newsgroups weren't communities in the sense the MediaWiki tech community strives to be one (they weren't about building things), so different behaviors were problematic there. Trolling, as used today, fits well into the list of non-acceptable conducts. If there are non-hypothetical persons in our community who are trying to reclaim it, that might be worth a discussion; otherwise, I wouldn't worry much about it.

Qgil: something like hostile tone maybe? A code of conduct might not be the best place to address that, though. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tone" was specifically raised under . It could be a rationale to block anyone for writing almost anything "non-positive". There are no community agreed policies which rely on bad "tone" in order to justify blocks or other sanctions; it would be worrying if there were. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly disagree with the assertion that it is not possible to write about a negative thing in non-hostile tone. I also don't think it differs fundamentally from WP:CIV (how much the latter gets followed is another matter). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think we need a point specifically about tone. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * People have defined 'trolling' above. I completely disagree with removing it.  There is a reason it's in Contributor Covenant.  In both their and my experience, it's a serious problem in communities like ours (and I have seen examples of it in our community). If people really think a definition needs to be incorporated into the CoC, I'm fine with quoting the definition from Wikipedia (which Valhallasw quoted above).  I think it's clear that while there may be some overlap, not all the items from that definition (e.g. "provoking readers into an emotional response") is in the list Quim quoted.  I think "unprofessional conduct" should be kept; it basically means the kind of disruptive behavior that is incompatible with getting things done in a respectful way.  I'm okay with removing "insults", as I think "personal attacks" is a superset of "insults". Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate or unwanted communication
"Inappropriate" was mentioned above; I agree that it does not seem very useful - it includes everything but explains nothing. There are generally three functions for the list of unacceptable behaviors: they inform the enforcers; help a concerned community member decide whether something they are about to decide or something someone just posted is acceptable or not; and tell a potential newcomer whether they can trust that the community is a safe space. "Inappropriate X" doesn't seem terribly useful for either goal. And I am not sure what unwanted even means. If it means that once someone tells you to stop communicating with them you must do comply, that is fine, but should be spelled out more explicitly. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are some kinds of inappropriate messages that most reasonable people would agree are inappropriate and should not be sent. As far as "unwanted communication", I've clarified that similarly to how we did for unwanted photography. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Substantive v Procedural
The draft is a confusing mix of Substantive law and Procedural law.


 * Substantive law declares which types of conduct lead to which types of penalty;
 * Procedural law defines how cases are handled.

Please place the procedural law into a separate paragraph. That paragraph should define:


 * the judicial body (e.g. committee membership and powers);
 * how cases are to be filed (e.g. identify the parties, state the facts, state which substantive law was breached, request remedy);
 * the rules of evidence (e.g. original documents and testimony is admissible; hear-say is inadmissible);
 * how cases are adjudicated (e.g. read charges, determine facts, determine applicable substantive law, decide penalty);
 * how decisions are announced (e.g. three brief paragraphs: findings of fact, findings of law, and penalty).

Procedural law is about the judicial system. If the work load grows, it may become necessary to have many such committees. Procedural law is our guarantee that the substantive law is applied in a uniform manner across many cases and many committees.

Uniform handling of cases is an important component of fairness. Moreover, public perception of uniform handling of cases contributes to public perception of fairness. Wp mirror (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed they should be split into different sections but they should be considered part of the same document, jurisprudence aside. This is not intended to be a legal system and should not be read as a legal document; as you say, fairness is important, and uniform handling and transparency are important parts of that fairness, but speaking as a former lawyer another element of fairness is to ensure that justice is efficient. Replicating a legal system down to the level of specifying the determination of "applicable substantive law" and every single possible type of evidence that is and is not acceptable does not necessarily help with this. Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An example might help. Procedural law, for many not-for-profit organizations, includes a reference to RONR 10th ed, Chap XX Disciplinary Procedures. The draft contains no such reference. Procedural law for the Conduct Committee should be gathered into one or more paragraphs, and thought through. Otherwise, committee members will find themselves having to improvise when they receive their first few cases. Improvisation leads to an aggrieved party claiming that committee members act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which in turn injures the public perception of fairness and shrinks to pool of volunteers willing to serve on the committee. Wp mirror (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In short, should we create a section "Code of Conduct Committee" and move there the details about its creation, membership, second level...?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's fine to create separate (sub)sections for that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a reference to Robert's Rules (which are incredibly US-centric) in any code of conduct for this sort of community. Could you point me to an example of a code of conduct for a technical or online community that contains such a reference? Quim: yes, I am reading this as a request to create a dedicated section about the entity tasked with enforcing it, and endorse that request (although Code of Conduct Committee may not be the best name, since it leaves ambiguous whether that is an enforcement body or an amending body or or or). Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of the substantive six-step process do you feel is unclear? I agree the committee may have to choose certain non-substantive manners themselves (e.g. do they meet by private chat room, or telephone, who takes notes?) but the substantive matters should be addressed here in the policy. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my starting a page called "Conduct Committee Charter/Draft". The idea is this: There should be two pages: I would be happy to provide a first draft to get the conversation going. The outline would look like this: Wp mirror (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Code of conduct for technical spaces/Draft - contains substantive law (definitions of unacceptable behavior, penalties);
 * Conduct Committee Charter/Draft - contains procedural law (committee structure, membership, responsibilities, procedures).
 * Purpose of Conduct Committee
 * Membership and selection
 * Responsibilities
 * Procedures and process
 * They should not be separate pages, they should be the same page, as I thought we'd all agreed on. I am loathe to set more than the high-level elements of the appeals process due to the potential (in fact, the certainty) that we would get bogged down in that debate. The committee should determine, within the restrictions of the code of conduct, their own policy (and transparently document it). Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds on both points. The committee will quickly gain a sense of what is effective in practice; let's provide a reasonable blueprint and clear goals here and let them do their job. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do object to drafting a new charter from scratch. There are already important procedural aspects in the main document.  The key procedural questions should be described in the Code, but I do not support drafting our own very-detailed procedure in a vacuum.  Many of the procedural elements (including resolutions) are based on https://github.com/jquery/jquery.org/blob/master/pages/conduct/reporting.md and https://github.com/jquery/jquery.org/blob/master/pages/conduct/enforcement-manual.md .  This in turn is based on https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/ and https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/enforcement-manual/ .  The key insight here is that we are benefiting from the procedural experience of real organizations (Django, and the others they adapted from, such as PyCon) that have dealt with these problems.  Making our own elaborate procedural system based on Roberts Rules of Order, but without practical experience with dealing with this, will lead to an unwieldy procedure that does not solve the problem.
 * As already noted, I expect the committee to answer some non-substantive procedural questions on their own. It is also possible they will ask for some substantive procedural changes, in which case they may request to amend the CoC.  But in either case, we'll be benefiting from practical experience in this kind of committee, which we can't if we draft our own based on Robert's Rules of Order. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Membership of the committee and ECT's role
The CoC doesn't explain how the committee is formed and how are their members renewed. Following with 's comment on Substantive v Procedural (thank you, I learned something), I'm not sure whether such information should be included in the CoC itself or in an attached document, but we need to define it.

Then, as ECT member I would like to understand what is the role the community wants us to have here. Especially when it comes to escalations, public statements and very ugly cases in general, I think it is useful to have a speaker paid for doing their job, saving some stress to those volunteering in the committee. However, I don't see the need of ECT to be involved in the regular work of the committee. If they would want our help, they could simply "escalate", as defined by the CoC. I think having a committee of equal members chosen through the same process by their own merits would give this team more credibility, independence, and strength.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is there a presumption that the appeal body must be the ECT? An elected group such as Stewards or Oversighters, positions of trust open to both unpaid volunteers and appointed WMF employees, would be in-line with putting the volunteer at the centre. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the Stewards nor the Oversighters necessarily have technical accumen, and this duty is not something they've volunteered to take on. One of the things to make sure of here is that the people doing the job are deeply knowledgeable about technical spaces and discussions and thus capable of recognising tech-specific forms of harassment for what they are.
 * Quim: it would probably be included in the document. The jQuery CoC, for example (which got passed today!) sets out this sort of thing very specifically, which I think works well. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand right, you're saying ECT does not necessarily need a reserved spot on the first-line committee, as the document currently lays out. Is that correct?  I agree we will have to specify how the committee is formed, either in this document or a sub-document.  I have added a note to this effect. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that we will need to specify more about the committee. I think that ECT should have a reserved spot for several reasons: ECT's job is community expertise, and there is substantial gathered knowledge and resources on that team, including easy consultation with other community teams; all-volunteer committees are vulnerable to gaps in institutional memory (and as tough a time as we have with our technical documentation and continuity of project knowledge, we need a way to ensure this doesn't happen here!); and CoC response and enforcement is a difficult and sometimes draining position, and having at least one person whose job this is part of should mean the committee has more support and structure. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for what is worth ECT also wants to be sure that the role this CoC gives to us is the role the community wants us to have. Any big social problem in the tech community has been and will continue to be a problem that we ECT need to help solving, with or without CoC. How exactly should we involved, you tell us. A pragmatic approach would be to define the process to form the committee (leaving the hypothetical ECT seat out for now) and to know the opinion of those interested to be part of it. At the end, these are the people that need to work comfortably with us.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not mention ECT's participation in the committee, only the nature of the appeal process. I would think it natural that some ECT members would volunteer to be part of the proposed committee, and if they end up going through a community election I doubt they would be likely to fail to get in considering the case. See below for my follow up on the choice of appeal body. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that having an appointed and immutable ECT member in that first-line would set a default point of gravity that would influence how the committee operates. Also, this permanent seat would not help in cases where pro/anti WMF attitudes are part of the problem (not an unusual situation). Having all the members of this first-line appointed equally through a community-driven process would make this first-line stronger in many ways. Whenever the committee members feel that they need ECT's help (or help from anyone else at the WMF), we would be there to support them and to call anyone else that needs to be involved. No less, no more.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me make a specific proposal for the committee membership, to prompt some discussion.


 * 1) Once we form consensus to enact the code of conduct, we (the people interested enough in this issue to be discussing it here) discuss amongst ourselves and nominate a slate of five trusted community members. I also think one seat should always be reserved for a member of the ECT, to help provide capacity and institutional memory, but if Quim doesn't think that's a good idea I don't think I can force him :)
 * 2) That slate gets ratified by the same process we used to enact the code.
 * 3) People serve on the committee as long as they want (unless they're forcibly removed). When a member leaves, the other members simply use their judgment to replace the departing member with another trusted community member. The code will explicitly mandate that they focus on keeping a wide variety of perspectives on the committee—which primarily means gender and geographic diversity—and that at the very most 2 (3?) members can be employed by the WMF.
 * 4) At any point, the community could use the same process used to enact the code to form a consensus to replace a committee member (this would essentially be a constructive vote of no confidence, requiring consensus on a replacement to remove someone). This means that as long as the committee does a good job (which, given that it's composed of trusted community members, I expect it almost always will), the rest of the community doesn't have to spend any time worrying about it.

Unanswered questions:
 * Should there be other mechanisms for removing a committee member? I imagine this would come up very rarely, so a community-wide discussion would be sufficient, but perhaps 4 members of the committee could vote to remove the fifth, or the ECT could step in to remove people.
 * What kind of process do we use for the community-wide discussions necessary to enact the code, select the first set of members, and remove them if needed?

My main objective here is a lightweight process. There's no need to institute the equivalent of enwiki's ArbCom elections when we will likely have far less conflict to deal with here. Also, I move that the committee be called the Conduct Committee, so we can call it ConCom for short :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The question of why the appeal body must be the ECT is actually still floating here. There have been no solid reasons put forward as to why no alternatives are possible, or more desirable. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For what is worth, I don't think ECT or whoever is at the "second-line" should be the automatic appeal body. The first-line is in charge of receiving reports, and also appeals. If the committee or the person(s) appealing think that the first-line is no good fit in a specific case, then they can go to the second-line.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty comparing your reply against what is currently written in the draft document. It might be helpful to stick to the same use of words. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, this is because we are all discussing and drafting, still with different opinions. We will get there. What is your take?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To use the same terminology as the document, in a "case where the committee disagrees with the above initial response", the Committee already has the right to revisit a decision by a single Committee member. I don't think there should be a general right to appeal to the Committee again.  However, I will broaden the 'objection' stage to reflect that the alleged offender can also object. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds answered the question about why ECT above ("Neither the Stewards nor the Oversighters necessarily have technical accumen, and this duty is not something they've volunteered to take on. [...]"). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this proposal for membership. My primary concern is very simple; you are assuming that people confident and certain enough to publicly comment in this discussion are adequately representative of the community, its concerns, and the nuances around problematic behaviour - and the members of the community who have left due to the inadequacy of existing codes of conduct, where they exist, and/or people who have not joined yet. That does not seem in any way a safe assumption to make. If we limit the pool of candidates and how they are evaluated to the people on this talk page we end up with a pool of people acceptable to the existing community - the existing community that in some elements is still discussing whether a code of conduct is even necessary much less what it looks like. This repeated idea that those who turn up represent the full gamut of opinions, or the opinions worth listening to, is problematic, and the assumption that the pool of people discussing it represents the pool of people who care about it is inaccurate (I know several people who have strong opinions here but are not comfortable commenting publicly) and honestly rather offensive. People not commenting do not "not care", they are in some cases simply not comfortable, and that should be something that causes us to re-evaluate how we hold these discussions, not dismiss factoring them in. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Ironholds said. I've personally heard from a fair handful of people who've been intentionally avoiding these discussions for reasons that include discomfort and lack of trust that their opinions will be thought to matter. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, Fhocutt (WMF): My thought behind that idea (and maybe this is naive) is that it's not incredibly hard to find people who would do a good job in the role of a ConCom member. It's certainly not something I would entrust to anybody off the street, and it certainly requires sensitivity and empathy for the type of people we want to include with this code. But I think there are enough good options that even an unrepresentative discussion would come up with pretty good choices. For example, I think that both of you would do a great job—and despite the limitations of this discussion, you're already here.
 * That said, it's still a fair criticism, and it seems like the provision for private comments in Matt's plan would give people who are not comfortable discussing this in public a chance to make their voice heard. The only problem is that private comments means the ultimate decision on committee membership has to be entrusted to a third party—in this case, ECT. I don't think that would be a bad outcome, since I trust them and think they would make good choices—and since they are ultimately accountable to the community through the Board of Trustees. However, the Wikimedia ideal is fairly direct community semi-democracy and I would be disappointed if we couldn't find a way to make that work in this case.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reread what I wrote and saw where I put "the people interested enough in this issue to be discussing it here". You're right—that's misguided. There are many reasons why someone might be interested yet not be commenting here.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually, to modify my comment again, I've actually thought of some ways to make anonymous comments compatible with discussion-based consensus decision making (see ). I also don't think giving ECT the ultimate authority to approve the people initially selected by the community would be bad—this isn't very different from the CA team having ultimate control of the global ban process, which I don't find concerning.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be worried if the CA team claim to control global bans, as this has always been a community driven process. You may be conflating Global Bans with WMF Global Bans. --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably know a lot more than I do about the global ban process; as I understand it, it's primarily community driven, but the CA team does intervene in extraordinary circumstances. I like the idea of a similar role for the ECT team here. For example, I wouldn't make them directly responsible for selecting Conduct Committee members, but I might well give them veto power over the community's picks, to be used only when strictly necessary.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal that 4 members could vote to oust the fifth. That would meant they could do that to prevent that 5th member from escalating (which the current draft explicitly says a minority could) the issue.  I also think the idea of the community ousting members at any time risks politicizing it (think 'recall election').  I need more time to think about the rest. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on reflection, recall discussions do seem like a bad idea.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also object to the idea of limiting the number of WMF employees to 2/5. I do think there should be non-WMF members, but I don't think you've made a case for why most (at least 3/5) members should be required to be non-WMF at all times. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree on both counts. Recall elections get nasty easily, and if we're instituting quotas I don't think that WMF/non-WMF should be the only characteristic we filter on. Let's not open that up. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the formation of any such committee. Existing Wikimedia projects processes should be used, such as sysops and stewards. --Nemo 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing Wikimedia projects processes have failed pretty thoroughly in this regard. As you yourself noted earlier, wikis which have behavioral policies are even more toxic then the Wikimedia tech space. Replicating that failure one more time does not seem like a worthwhile endeavor. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of said processes being attempted for the cases presented and in the only cases I remember of blocks etc. in the MediaWiki community our processes worked perfectly. --Nemo 07:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing Wikimedia projects processes are designed to be effective on specific tools, and they don't attempt to be cross-tools. There are no stewards specific to "Wikimedia technical spaces", and it will be interesting to ask them what they think about enforcing a CoC in places like Phabricator, Gerrit, etc. I do think some stewards could be very capable committee members, though. As for sysops, only mediawiki.org has close to 200 users with that role. We cannot expect such group to deal efficiently with delicate situations privately. So no, I don't think the existing Wikimedia processes you are referring to have been effective to address the problems this CoC aims to address, and I don't think they are designed for this task.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Existing Wikimedia projects processes have failed pretty thoroughly..." is this really what the WMF believes and is trying to fix here? I have seen some anecdotes and ridiculous amounts of over dramatic grandstanding, but a lack of measurable evidence to show that if today we abandon community driven collegiate processes and force an untested WMF procedure from the outside, that this would result in attractive and healthier Wikimedia project communities, or be more effective for handling harassment. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what gave you the idea that I am expressing the WMF's beliefs here. As for my beliefs, I do think the Wikimedia movement has a chronic problem with conduct, both with occasional harassment and with a constant background noise of hostility and microaggressions; and existing processes could not fix it, neither in the tech spaces nor in the content projects. This proposal borrows elements from other tech organizations, who had some success with them. In general, replacing a method that has failed for us with one that worked for others seems common sense to me; and implementing it and then comparing two processes that we actually tried seems more reasonable than trying to somehow measure theoretically how well something will work before we implement it. Maybe it will fail, and then we can scrap it; it doesn't seem like a particularly risky experiment. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Another membership proposal
I'd like to propose a self-perpetuating committee, boot-strapped by the Engineering Community Team (ECT).
 * 1) We open up self-nominations (if you think someone would be a great candidate, you can ask them to self-nominate).  These self-nominees can make a statement up front.
 * 2) People would then comment on nominations, both publicly and by emailing ECT (as they prefer).
 * 3) ECT consults with Community Advocacy on the candidates.  The past behavior of the candidates should be in the spirit of the Code of Conduct.
 * 4) The ECT will then select five candidates, considering their involvement in the community, background, and experience that would inform their Committee work (if any; this is not a hard requirement).
 * 5) Every 6 months, the Committee will vote on a new Committee to replace it (Nominations are opened one month before this month; re-nominating yourself is allowed).  Majority approval (3/5) of the overall slate is required, but unanimity is encouraged if possible.  Re-selections are possible, but no one can be on the Committee for more than 12 consecutive months, unless the Committee unanimously agrees that an exception to this is necessary because suitable new candidates are not available.
 * 6) ECT can remove Committee members, but this should be only be exercised in case of severe problems.

It is required that the Committee can never be 100% WMF staff, and it's encouraged to choose various affiliations.

I think the main benefit here is that the Committee will have some knowledge about the community, and problems we face, so they can use that to help inform their decisions on the next Committee. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

COI
How the committee is formed interests me little, as I don't think we should have a committee (see above). As someone who has shared the responsibility of approving a code of ethics in an organisation way larger than our technical community, I recall that the main concern is generally conflict of interest, which must be avoided at any rate to prevent complete discredit of the policy.

Whoever decides on forceful enforcement (e.g. a block of a contributor) is disposing of movement resources (e.g. volunteer developer time), which also reminds us of Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. For instance I would be uncomfortable if a WMIT (Wikimedia Italia) employee or contractor happened to "judge" a case involving another WMIT employee or contractor, as any outcome clearly implies (financial) interest: promoting the employer's interest affects renewal of a contract, vacating a job currently taken by an involved party affects employment opportunities in the organisation. --Nemo 07:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest are usual in community affairs, and there are ways to deal with it. Committee members have the same chances to have COI than stewards, sysops, WMF employees, and just any humans involved. Promoting diversity of affiliations in the committee and allowing committee members to disclose COI and step aside in specific cases should be enough to control this problem reasonably. Nothing new.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion. I've added a point about that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct Committee v Legal Counsel
The draft mixes two classes of unacceptable behavior that must be handled differently.


 * Unacceptable behavior
 * Class 1 - violence, threats of violence, intimidation, stalking, inappropriate touching;
 * Class 2 - inappropriate communication, sustained disruption, offensive comments, unwanted photography, outing.

In many jurisdictions, class 1 behavior is a crime, and must be handled by the authorities. Not to inform the authorities would make one an accessory. Only class 2 behavior is properly handled by a WMF Conduct Committee.

Wp mirror (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedure
 * Class 1 - inform law enforcement, inform WMF Legal Counsel;
 * Class 2 - report to technical space moderator, file case with WMF Conduct Committee.
 * Penalty
 * Class 1 - WMF Legal Counsel recommends: ban, suspension without pay pending investigation, termination;
 * Class 2 - WMF Conduct committee issues: warning, timeout, suspension, ban.


 * 'Class 1' behavior can be handled by the authorities, but it is up to the victim to decide whether to report it to the authorities or not. The WMF and the conduct committee must not report what happened to the authorities, unless explicitly asked to do so by the victim.
 * There is no need to distinguish the two classes for this code of conduct; our (civil) response to a criminal act is seperate from a potential criminal investigation. Valhallasw (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Valhallasw. I'd also say that your argument very nicely demonstrates one of the problems with this kind of distinction; some of the acts you have categorised as "class 1" are not crimes in some places, but are in others, or have totally different standards in different jurisdictions. I absolutely agree that in the case of situations where we believe a crime has been committed, counsel should be notified. I disagree that the need to provide that notification precludes civil enforcement in addition (and would argue there are going to be cases where filing legal reports, straight off the bat, is not in the interests of the victim). This seems like an area where counsel should be consulted if there are legitimately worries that not reporting constitutes making the Wikimedia Foundation (or the committee, or anyone else involved in the reporting chain) an accessory. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this document discourages reporting to the authorities (and that is exactly as it should be). However, I think it is still worth reporting to the conduct committee as well (remember, the authorities may not be able to take legal action, but that doesn't mean we want that person in our community).  There is also a clear statement, "If you believe anyone is in physical danger, please notify appropriate law enforcement first and email emergency@undefinedwikimedia.org", which is an additional way the WMF could be informed about such serious matters.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The draft states that one of the penalties is "public reprimand". This does create a need to distinguish the two classes. For a class 1 case, if the Conduct Committee issues a public reprimand, the following charges could be filed against the members:
 * Libel. If the Conduct Committee got the facts wrong (e.g. deceived by a vengeful X), the announcement could ruin the reputation of the reprimanded party, who would in turn seek remedy.
 * Accessory. If the Conduct Committee got the facts right, but did not inform the authorities, the announcement would alert the authorities, who would in turn want to question the members (what do you know, how long have you known about it, why did you not notify the authorities).

For a class 2 case, these concerns do not arise.

From time-to-time, the Conduct Committee will get the facts wrong. Why? No rules of evidence. The committee can not insist upon sworn testimony. The committee will sometimes have to rely upon hear-say. If we wish to claim that no distinction exists between the two classes, then perhaps we should choose penalties less likely to cause blowback. Wp mirror (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are introducing a distinction that is not found in the actual draft, and these questions are best handled by actual lawyers. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If the proposed Conduct Committee issues public reprimands, then we should expect that, sooner or later, actual lawyers will get involved. Shall we ask WMF Legal Counsel to look over the draft before this happens? Wp mirror (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Physical contact
MzMcBride removed the parenthetical in "Inappropriate or unwanted attention, touching, or physical contact (sexual or otherwise)" with the rationale that it felt "awkward and unnecessary". To kick off a discussion about that:

Sexual versus non-sexual touching has different levels of acceptability within western society (speaking very broadly, there). Sexual contact is seen as obviously inappropriate for professional spaces, and non-sexual totally fine if both parties are comfortable with it. This split in characterisation should be called out when we're talking about how to handle unwanted contact. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the key point is that unwanted or inappropriate touching is prohibited either way (sexual or otherwise). I agree it's worth calling out, since sexual harassment is one of the problems this is trying to address.  I've put it back. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which split in characterization should be called out? I don't follow what you're saying. I also still don't see the need to parenthetically clarify that physical contact can be "sexual or otherwise." --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This area seems more than slightly over-egged, possibly this is a cultural gap of some sort between Europe and the US. If I were at a lunch at a Wikimedia sponsored hackerthon, and a fellow volunteer started choking on their chicken sandwich, I would like to avoid feeling so awkward about potential embarrassing claims of inappropriate touching, that I never tried to slap their back or attempt abdominal thrusts to clear their airways before they lose conciousness. At the moment I'm thinking that I would step back and wait until someone else helped out, especially if the person choking were half my age (which is quite likely). --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the event that somebody was choking to death would your read genuinely be that the Heimlich was unwanted? Ironholds (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is unhelpful hypothetical argument. I'll respond to this one direct question, but I prefer to avoid getting into replying to more of this type.
 * The way the draft is being extended in ways that only relate to thought experiments, rather than case history for our community, is of concern and especially the emphasis on "touching" as a reason to apply this policy. My feelings on this are from the last few years of targeted sexual and sexuality related abuse/vandalism on and off the Wikimedia projects (one of these attacks was on my Commons talk page in the last 24 hours, and has been deleted from the page history). This past does make me concerned about the risks of socializing at physical Wikimedia events, and has made me concerned about practicalities of things like sharing rooms when I attended Wikimedia events.
 * If I take your comment literally, then there is plenty of precedent and I note that preferred description is "abdominal thrusts" as other terms can be confusing or controversial depending on what you read. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur the choking example was unhelpful and I'm glad we're in agreement on that. You seem to be making a false distinction, here; that there are "thought experiments" and "things we have seen in our community" and nothing in-between. What we are talking about is not thought-experiments that could never happen, or could happen but never do happen; we are talking about things that absolutely happen in communities incredibly similar to ours in terms of focus, demographics and process. It is hubris for us to take the position that because instances of this have not been reported - in an environment similar to those where it has, and an environment lacking an existing enforcement mechanism in many ways - they cannot, or will not, happen.
 * I am deeply sorry for your past experiences of harassment in this community, along those axes or along any other axes. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to "axes", sarcastic apologies that are deliberate personal attacks are just as unhelpful. We should all expect better behaviour of WMF employees if the Wikimedia community is to provide them with special trust and authority. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not sarcastic, nor do I see where it was a personal attack. I was genuinely saying that I am sorry for your experiences. I apologise if what I wrote was badly written or ambiguous and so came off as an attack in any way; I will endeavour to be more precise before hitting save. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now realised the ambiguity might be around "axes"; I meant it in the sense of "the plural of axis" not "the plural of axe". Apologies for the ambiguity :(. All data visualisation and no play makes.... Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The precedent you cited is from Weekly World News, a fictional tabloid publication. I'm sorry about any harassment you've received on any of the projects.  This draft code of conduct does address communication ("Inappropriate or unwanted communication", "Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments", etc.), not just touching, in the covered spaces. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Conduct Committee members
A volunteer serving on the Conduct Committee must consider the possibility that an aggrieved party will sue for libel. To attract qualified volunteers to serve on this committee, one should consider how best to protect them. The main methods are:
 * D&O Liability Insurance. Many not-for-profit organizations purchase a D&O policy that extends coverage to chapter members and volunteers. It is not clear if the WMF has such coverage. Nothing relevant appears when one searches wikimediafoundation.org.
 * Limited disclosure. To take away the grounds for a libel suit, many not-for-profit organizations follow RONR 10th ed, Chap XX Disciplinary Procedures, §61: "If (after trial) a member is expelled, the society has the right to disclose the fact that he is no longer a member—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members have the right to make public the charge of which an expelled member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of the facts public may constitute libel."

For the protection of Conduct Committee members, please: Wp mirror (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * procure D&O liability insurance, and post the terms on your site;
 * specify, in the procedural law for the Conduct Committee, how to report the outcome of cases; and
 * reconsider the "public reprimand" penalty clause stated in the draft.
 * The Wikimedia projects are not organised as a society of members. Again, these concerns are best surfaced to and handled by counsel, not pseudorandom members of our technical community (I include me in that). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What open source code of conduct committee offers D&O insurance to all members (both staff and volunteer)? Unless you can show a significant number of them do, I don't think it's reasonable to pursue this.  I also can not think of any cases where someone has successfully sued an open source project or related organization for libel after being banned from participating or reprimanded.  Can you? Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have in mind the following libel cases: The last three are sometimes called cyberlibel cases. Consider the following: As to D&O Liability Insurance: The need for coverage is real. This is why potential committee members need to see a copy of the policy. The WMF Chief of Finance and Administration is only one e-mail away. Shall we ask him? Wp mirror (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Zenger (1735) - ruled that truth is a defense against libel charge;
 * Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. (1991) - ruled that carrier/distributor not liable for libelous posting;
 * Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. (1995) - ruled that publisher is liable for libelous posting;
 * Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (1996) - ruled that Communications Decency Act (1996) protects on-line service providers.
 * If the proposed Conduct Committee got its facts wrong and publicly reprimanded someone for a crime he did not commit, Zenger (1735) would not apply, and WMF General Counsel would seek another defense.
 * If WMF General Counsel disavows the Conduct Committee, then Cubby (1991) might be a defense. But then the Conduct Committee would not have authority to enforce the Code of Conduct.
 * If the WMF Board of Trustees acknowledges the Conduct Committee (e.g. if the Conduct Committee reports to the Board of Trustees, like say the Affiliations Committee does), then Stratton (1995) might apply and WMF would be liable.
 * members of the WMF Board of Trustees are indemnified (see Bylaws Article VIII - INDEMNIFICATION);
 * the WMF Chief of Finance and Administration is responsible for purchasing the coverage (see seventh bullet under ADMINISTRATION).
 * If coverage is not provided, qualified volunteers might be hard to find, and even WMF employees would be prudent to hesitate.
 * If WMF employees are covered, but not volunteers, then committee membership should be restricted to employees.
 * If WMF General Counsel needs to be able to disavow the Conduct Committee, then WMF employees must be excluded from the committee.
 * I asked some specific questions, with the goal of comparing to similar situations (open source or at least similarly-minded organizations with code of conduct enforcement). None of the libel cases you mentioned show that a good-faith ban or reprimand can lead to a successful libel suit.  I am not convinced libel suits are a real problem other communities have faced in connection with their codes of conduct.
 * Similarly, you have not shown that D&O insurance is something other similar committees have had. It's not always affordable or realistic to buy more and more insurance, and it certainly doesn't seem to be legally required (or you would cite an example of a community that had bought it). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Example: The Association for Computing Machinery is a publisher, has chapters and special interest groups that also publish, hosts public speaking events, and has on-line communities. The ACM also has a code of ethics, breach of which may result in termination of membership (see section 4.2). When I was a member, the ACM had a D&O Liability Insurance policy that extended coverage to all its chapter members and volunteers worldwide. As an officer of one its chapters, I had a copy of the policy. When the conduct of one of our members created a legal liability, we initiated a disciplinary process. We followed RONR 10th ed., as stated in our Bylaws. Charges were drafted, the board went into executive session, and we do not disclose the facts of the case.

Following RONR plus D&O coverage is why libel is not a problem for the ACM. The ACM is not unique in this respect. Indeed, the formula is widely used in the not-for-profit world. Public reprimands for breach of professional ethics are issued by governments and governing boards (e.g. legal, medical). Non-profits, however, quietly dismiss an unethical member.

D&O premiums are low. Cost is not the issue. Nor is having a list of court cases. Getting people with executive experience to serve is the issue. This is why WMF trustees are indemnified. They would not serve otherwise. Wp mirror (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should definitely check this with WMF Legal before it takes effect. There may be other approaches to dealing with any potential liability arising from participation on this committee. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The ACM Is only loosely comparable. It's not an open source organization, but a publisher.  Unlike us, they also have a clearly delineated set of 'members'.  Moreover, their bylaws say, "The Association shall have power to purchase and maintain insurance or to self-insure on behalf of any person who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Association".  You'll note that it says nothing about having the power to purchase insurance for all ACM-related volunteers.  In fact, it doesn't even authorize them to purchase insurance for all paying members.  That suggests that if they ever covered all volunteers or all members, they no longer do.  No one has suggested that 'executive experience' is required to serve on this committee.  I am confident we can get people to serve on this committee, including volunteers.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
By the way, this whole discussion seems dominated from the start by a cherry-picked pre-determined very small subset of the community, which convened in external places and then started this concerted effort. In our wiki culture, this smells of so-called canvassing, which by definition makes a discussion and decision invalid and void. --Nemo 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal, just like most proposals in our community, was started publicly by some people who cared about this topic, and others equally interested have been involved since then. Nobody has been sherry-picking anybody, and nothing has been pre-determined. Trust me, I have been following this process and its collateral discussions and initiatives since T87773 (2015-01-28), both in public spaces and in the casual private conversations where I have been CCed.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I learned of it from wikitech-l (2015-08-07) which is one of the technical spaces that would be covered by the proposed Code of Conduct. If anyone is aware of a technical space not notified, we should remedy that now. Wp mirror (talk)
 * Basically what Matt said; I heard about this from the Wikitech thread and to my knowledge it started on a phab task and with a public meeting at Wikimania. That's about as far from canvassing as you could get. Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I learned about this from the same Wikitech thread as Ironholds and Wp mirror.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I learned about this draft by personal email from a deeply concerned long term technical contributor. They have not contributed here themselves, from my understanding of their history, the most likely reason being that they do not want to be seen to be 'non-positive' about any WMF driven initiative, and with weaker English skills their voice would be lost in the wiki-lawyering. Without the email, I would never have known that this draft had been created. --Fæ (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would say canvassing - but it certainly does seem as if it is being pushed by a rather small group of interested people, and being pushed rather hard. I am somewhat concerned in how the discussion doesn't seem to have all that many voices among the long term mediawiki/core developers (Since that is one of the main groups this document plans to regulate), but there is a long thread on wikitech-l, so its not like the relavent parties don't know about it. If the people commenting are the people interested, I guess that is that. Bawolff (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As other people have noted, this work started publicly on Phabricator, and I've sent multiple notifications to wikitech-l. Architecture committee/2015-08-12 indicates the architecture committee members (i.e. long-term contributors) are aware of it; I would expect anyway they're aware from wikitech-l.  If you feel it should be sent out to another public forum, please do so. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Next steps
We need a bit of organization. Even when the discussion is being shared basically by just a few people, it is becoming harder to follow and get involved productively (even more for volunteers with little time available). The goal of this exercise is to draft a proposal of an enforceable Code of Conduct to be approved by the Wikimedia technical community. We can slice the drafting in modules, allowing for a lighter process of discussion and consensus:
 * 1) Intro + Principles + Unacceptable behavior define the scope of this CoC, and have an intrinsic value. If those of us active in this Talk page now focus on these points, we should be able to reach a level of agreement good enough to send a proposal to wikitech-l.
 * 2) A new section "Committee" (that I will create now unless someone is faster) comprising all the details about this committee will need some more iterations. We can work on it while the community has time to discuss the points above. Hopefully by the time that the points above are stable and clear, we could share our proposal about the committee to wikitech-l.
 * 3) With the previous points on its way for agreement, Reporting, Appealing, and Enforcement should be relatively simpler to deal with, as they are mostly a matter of process. Once we have a draft we are happy with, we would share it with wikitech-l, adding that this is the last chunk of the CoC and we are seeking general consensus for the approval of the entire document.
 * 4) The CoC would become official as soon as it is approved. Then we would proceed to the creation of the committee.

The trick here is that the most active contributors to this discussion would focus on the topics that need more urgent approval, leaving he rest for later. Sporadic contributors can comment anywhere, of course.

There have been some comments about a self-selection (for a lack of a better word?) of people participating in this draft, in this discussion page, and in the related threads in wikitech-l. In order to help capturing a wider range of opinions, we could offer an email alias i.e. coc-discussion@wikimedia.org that would relay emails to, say, three identified people that will commit to treat this feedback with confidentiality and channel the contributions received to the public discussion. Three is big enough to be reliable (a single person might miss an email, be away, etc) and small enough to maintain personal trust.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really like this proposal. One implication it has, though, is for the approval process; the problem with a consensus-driven approach is that it is very hard to identify the trend of agreement or disagreement when confidential feedback or disapproval or approval is being factored in. What are your plans for dealing with that? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this staged approach, although I share Ironholds' concerns about how to make consensus (or its lack) apparent. I do think that offering the opportunity for anonymized input is important in this discussion. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think anonymized feedback can still be taken into account in reaching consensus, as long as it is posted to the page (in anonymous form). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I also like this plan—it isolates what seems to be the hardest part of the discussion: the composition of the Committee. Ironholds: I think there are two routes we could take to deal with confidential feedback:


 * 1) Have the trusted parties channel it into the discussion, but have it impact the discussion by (hopefully) affecting the positions of the people taking part directly.
 * 2) Allow people to send their positions anonymously to the trusted parties, and have those parties paraphrase it, confirm that the senders haven't !voted publicly in the discussion and have some basic level of involvement in the Wikimedia technical community (I don't think this should be high—for example, a preexisting Phab account should be sufficient, even if it hasn't commented), and add it to the discussion on the same level as an identified comment.

I lean towards 2, personally.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like 1 better. I appreciate that some people may be reluctant to publicly state their positions, but I think its important to make sure that their is no question about the community support for the proposal (In order to ensure the entire community feels bound by it), and part of that is being able to verify that the vote isn't being controlled by a sock puppet army. Bawolff (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did think about that, so in option 2 I mentioned that the trusted parties receiving the anonymous feedback would take some basic steps to guard against sockpuppets (essentially the same steps that anybody would take take when checking public comments): checking that the sender has a Phab/mediawiki.org account that predates the discussion and that they haven't already commented. Do you think these wouldn't be enough?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its more I would like to err on the side of caution. Its a complicated issue, I'm not 100% sure where I stand. Bawolff (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not trivial to cross-check someone's email address with their MediaWiki.org or Phabricator account. First, some accounts don't even have email addresses associated (but the anonymous feedback might still come from an email). Even if there is an email associated, you would need to use Special:EmailUser to send them a message to confirm the previous email came from them (otherwise, you don't know their email address and don't know if the from address of the original email was forged). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance
jQuery's Code of Conduct Committee is a creature of the jQuery Foundation's Board of Directors: This is documented in their Enforcement Manual. This is documented in their Reporting Guide.
 * the board appoints and reviews the committee members;
 * the committee is empowered to speak on the foundation's behalf to contact witnesses and to stop ongoing situations;
 * the committee reports the outcome of each case to the board;
 * deadlocked cases are escalated to the board; and
 * public statements are issued by the board, never the committee.
 * appeals go to the jQuery Foundation's President and Executive Director.

No equivalent language appears in the draft Code of Conduct under consideration here. These are issues of governance; and they need to be addressed. Is there any reason why the proposed Conduct Committee should not be a creature of the WMF Board of Trustees? Wp mirror (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Time, existing org structure, and lack of technical background, mostly. The jQuery Foundation is very different from the WMF and the two organizations and their boards focus on different tasks. This proposed committee's purpose (to promote and maintain a healthy technical community) is well within the Engineering Community Team's purview and skillset and I think it is a more natural fit. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems unsatisfactory. Members of WMF technical staff will be actively working in spaces where this code is in force, and subject to its provisions.  It cannot be right for the ECT to sit in judgement on, or take appeals from, its own members or fellow-worker -- the clear failure of natural justice implied would completely undermine the credibility, acceptability and authority of the Code in all its applications, not just those that might involve a member of the WMF engineering staff.  The authority of the Code must surely emanate from the Board, which is the ultimate authority and embodies the community consensus through its elective structure.  It seems unlikely that there will be large amounts of business for them to transact and if it prove burdensome, I am sure the Board is fully capable of managing its own business either by delegation ad hoc or to a standing subcommittee. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is in fact language addressing the same questions. It's just that the current draft has different answers.  The draft is quite clear about who speaks (e.g. "A private reprimand from the committee", "A public reprimand. In this case, the group chair will deliver that reprimand", etc.), and it's also clear about the appeals process ("To appeal a decision of the committee, or if you have concerns about how it was resolved, contact the Engineering Community Team at ect@wikimedia.org and they will review the case").  The main question not addressed is how the committee will be formed.  There is already active discussion about that.
 * I think ECT has better understanding of day-to-day life in the technical community than the Board of Trustees does, and is thus better suited as the appeals body. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Outing
Hi. Re: this edit, "outing" actually has a different meaning in the context of Wikimedia wikis (cf. w:en:WP:OUTING). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Without looking at the link, I would assume the other definition was meant in this context. Bawolff (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've pointed the link to the enwiki project page you linked.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)