(Related task: T317989: Remove archived GitHub repos from codesearch proposes the removal of one of the seven repositories on grounds of it being archived.)

I'm trying to see how it ended up in codesearch in the first place. Maybe someone mistook at as something wikimania but doesn't matter. I can't find the explicit call it which means something in our auto discovery is broken. CC @Legoktm

Probably via MWStake? Bunch of freshly found extensions added six of them.

Yup:

if exts:
    # Sanity check (T223771)
    if not data['query']['extdistrepos']['extensions']:
        raise RuntimeError('Why are there no Gerrit extensions?')
    for ext in data['query']['extdistrepos']['extensions']:
        conf['repos']['Extension:%s' % ext] = repo_info(
            'mediawiki/extensions/%s' % ext
        )
    conf['repos']['VisualEditor core'] = repo_info(
        'VisualEditor/VisualEditor'
    )
    for repo_name, info in parse_gitmodules(
            "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MWStake/nonwmf-extensions/master/.gitmodules"
    ):
        conf['repos'][repo_name] = info

Patch coming

(And the seventh one is in MWStake’s nonwmf-skins, this commit.)

Change 861494 had a related patch set uploaded (by Ladsgroup; author: Amir Sarabadani):

[labs/codesearch@master] write_config: Exclude men rights activists from codesearch

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/861494

I explicitly make sure it's excluded for now, Maybe someone can file a bug in https://github.com/MWStake/nonwmf-extensions to remove it too?

Change 861494 merged by jenkins-bot:

[labs/codesearch@master] write_config: Exclude men rights activists repos from codesearch

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/861494

Filed a PR proposing to remove this and another similar-looking repo at WMStake/nonwmf-extensions#40. (Note to self: if it’s accepted, also make another pull request for nonwmf-skins.)

Okay, after the new deploy, it's mostly cleaned up. It seems we have the same issue with skins too. I make a patch for it.

Change 861508 had a related patch set uploaded (by Ladsgroup; author: Amir Sarabadani):

[labs/codesearch@master] Centralize skipping repos and use the logic on skins too

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/861508

I don't think this whole process is a good idea. I know nothing about WikiMANNia, but I don't see how being anti-feminist, or holding any other specific political views, is "antithetical to the Wikimedia mission and values", unless those views include removing people's access to knowledge, which I don't think is the case here. If anything, I would say the idea of limiting people's access to support (or code) based on their political views is what's antithetical to the the Wikimedia mission.

Change 861508 merged by jenkins-bot:

[labs/codesearch@master] Centralize skipping repos and use the logic on skins too

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/861508

Engaging or holding hateful views is disruptive and prevents the rest of us from furthering the Wikimedia mission.

Sorry, I don't buy it. What you linked to is not even policy on Wikipedia (it's just an essay), let alone in Wikimedia technical spaces. We have a whole code of conduct (maybe even two) that was/were hashed out, discussed and voted on by a lot of people. As far as I know, WikiMANNia hasn't violated any of it. Are you now saying there's a whole extra category of unacceptable behavior, having to do with political views, that was never discussed or voted on but simply determined by the handful of you? It doesn't make sense.

If you want to get down to technicalities (such as if an essay is enforceable or not), I have to say that codesearch is a cloud VPS tool and its maintainers are free to do what they see fit as long as it follows Cloud Terms of use, WMF terms of use, and the code of conducts (UCoC and TCoC) which none was violated here. I also don't understand how cutting a hate group wiki from our code search might interfere Wikimedia's mission in bringing sum of all human knowledge to everyone.

The point of essay is to explain something so you don't need to repeat an argument over and over again.

Okay - so you're allowed to kick people's code off of codesearch for political violations. And then the next group of people to run codesearch could turn around and ban feminists, if they wanted to, with the same justification. I just don't think it's a good idea.

Does the code search tool help in general with bringing knowledge to everyone? I would say it does, in that it makes development easier. Given that, reducing any functionality in code search makes it less useful to the mission. I have no idea what WikiMANNia's code is, but if it's at all useful to anyone else, then removing it does marginally hurt the mission, even if by a tiny amount. There's also the "chilling effect", of people now knowing that there's an unspecified political litmus test, which, if they fail, will cause their code to be hidden away.

For the records, when I recently added most MWStake listed repos to the repo indexing setup of wikimedia.biterg.io in T301786, I also deliberately decided not to index the aforementioned repositories: I just didn't think it's a good idea.

Just to add my two cents here.

I agree with @Yaron_Koren in as much that political opinions* in and of itself should not be grounds to delist. As I understand it, the linked article in the top comment claims that this website is associated with making death threats to people they don't like. Advocating for violence, is valid grounds for delisting in my opinion. So I support removing this site on the basis that it is advocating violence.

\* This should not be taken to say that i think all political opinions should necessarily be tolerated as long as they don't advocate violence. I think there is a place to delist things that advocate for blatant bigotry, even if they don't promote violence. However given this site seems to be promoting or actively tolerating violence, all that seems irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In T323956#8432123, @Ladsgroup wrote:

If you want to get down to technicalities (such as if an essay is enforceable or not), I have to say that codesearch is a cloud VPS tool and its maintainers are free to do what they see fit as long as it follows Cloud Terms of use, WMF terms of use, and the code of conducts (UCoC and TCoC) which none was violated here. I also don't understand how cutting a hate group wiki from our code search might interfere Wikimedia's mission in bringing sum of all human knowledge to everyone.

The point of essay is to explain something so you don't need to repeat an argument over and over again.

I find this line of reasoning concerning. To be clear, I am not defending WikiMANNia and think its reasonable for them to be delisted based on the articles I read from the top comment. However, it is important we do things for the right reason.

Its certainly correct that cloud search tool can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't violate the CoC. However this argument would never apply to blocking participation, since the code of conduct clearly states it is a violation to "[block] community collaboration". If the maintainers blocked a wiki from participating for arbitrary reasons instead of a valid one, this would clearly be a violation. There would never be a situation where "we do what we want" is a valid rationale. Either there is a better rationale (As i think there is in this case) or the delisting would be a flagrant violation of the code of conduct. We should not imply it would be ok for tool maintainers to block participation based on personal whim since it clearly would not be.

I've been thinking about this the past few days since the pull request was made and @Legoktm asked someone to merge the PR.

First, I want to point out that if you search for wikimannia on mediawiki.org right now, you'll get a few hits. If we, as a community, decide we do not want to have anything pointing to a group or a site, then it seems like mediawiki.org is the place to start. If there are organizations or sites we have that we do not engage with, it would be good to have a list so that we can be sure we follow it.

Next, I saw that @LucasWerkmeister said that wikimannia was "judged to be harmful to young people by the German government in 2020" and read the linked article (via Google Translate) but I don't see any mention of the German government. (I saw information about cases against them for copyright violations but that is not at all the same thing.)

The article did introduce me to the idea of "rejection sensitivity" and did call out some violent acts that people who suffer from rejection sensitivity (e.g., incels) have committed.

But I didn't see anything about the German government judging wikimannia to be harmful to young people.

Finally, I can understand how coming across WikiMANNia while using code search could be shocking if you thought they are on the same level as, say, the KKK, and there may be a case for that, but right now the wiki is offline and even the Wayback machine has blocked them so it is hard for people to figure out what they are about except by reading articles about them.

I feel like a few of the folks responding here have a poor understanding of how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel have shaped the modern far-right hate movement. If you really, really want to read the toxic drivel produced by these folks try https://archive.today/ rather than Internet Archive. They have/had an 'en' subdomain too if you are worried that machine translation to English will somehow lose the subtlety of their hateful arguments.

In T323956#8437053, @MarkAHershberger wrote:

Next, I saw that @LucasWerkmeister said that wikimannia was "judged to be harmful to young people by the German government in 2020" and read the linked article (via Google Translate) but I don't see any mention of the German government. (I saw information about cases against them for copyright violations but that is not at all the same thing.)

Specifically:

Jetzt hat die Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien die Plattform als jugendgefährdend eingestuft.

I didn’t include the department’s full name because it’s somewhat of a mouthful (and because writing “young people” twice in the sentence felt stylistically awkward). The department is part of the government, though, as I understand it (specifically, subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth). The decision itself doesn’t seem to be public as far as I can tell („Bei so genannten Telemedien unterbleibt eine Veröffentlichung [der Liste], um einen Werbeeffekt zu vermeiden.“), though dewiki:Männerrechtsbewegung cites it as decision N°6300 regarding proceeding Pr 0955 / 2019 (permalink, reference 136).

Finally, I can understand how coming across WikiMANNia while using code search could be shocking if you thought they are on the same level as, say, the KKK, and there may be a case for that, but right now the wiki is offline and even the Wayback machine has blocked them so it is hard for people to figure out what they are about except by reading articles about them.

The wiki was online when I filed the task on Tuesday, so that’s some odd timing. (Its front page featured a cartoon depicting the aforementioned department as Nazi demagogues, if you’re curious.)

I agree with Mark in as much that the current situation, where these extensions aren't indexed but at the same time, User:WikiForMen is considered a user in good standing, is bizarre. Either these people are welcome in our community or they are not. Going half way does not make sense.

I do think it would be a good idea to formalize rules about whether people involved with hate speech and violence are allowed to participate in our sites even if all the activity is off-site and not targeted at anyone who participates in our sites. Most of our current policies are geared towards on-site behaviour. This is a complicated topic, which is why it deserves to be talked out and formalized.

but right now the wiki is offline

Their wiki is not offline currently.

In T323956#8437430, @Bawolff wrote:

but right now the wiki is offline

Their wiki is not offline.

When I visited it, it wouldn't load. Sometimes my browser configuration causes problems like that, but the articles I read talked about how the site was posting that it was going away and so I thought it must have. I didn't try too hard to figure out if they were actually offline when I initially didn't see anything.

FWIW though, my objection would be their heavy association with harrasment campaigns including threats of violence. I don't think that is immediately visible just reading the front page of their site - so I'm not sure "just go to their" website, really answers any of the relevant questions here.

In T323956#8437417, @LucasWerkmeister wrote:

Specifically:

Jetzt hat die Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien die Plattform als jugendgefährdend eingestuft.

Thanks for pointing that out. The particular sentence in the article was translated as "The Federal Testing Agency for media harmful to young people has now classified the platform as harmful to young people." I searched for "government" and didn't find it.

In T323956#8437200, @bd808 wrote:

I feel like a few of the folks responding here have a poor understanding of how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel have shaped the modern far-right hate movement.

I think you touch on the problem. The anti-social behavior (harassment, violence, etc.) is a part of the milieu that these groups operate in. They tend to feed off of and amplify each other.

The anti-social behavior is a problem, but does that behavior negate the utility in the software? If I were to fork the software, remove references to "Wikimannia", would indexing be ok?

There is a difference between an officially recognized hate group and a political party that I'd never vote for. I know the line is blurry in some countries, but at least in Germany it's strict. Platforming (by providing technical support, even nominal) to a hate group against "women, gays, and asylum seekers" changes the overton window and feeds on the paradox of tolerance.

While I do understand that the people would like to hear more on the reasoning of why it should be deleted, some due diligence and researching on their side would be appreciated.

In long-term, I'd be happy to have a discussion on where to draw the line for outside groups but I don't think here is where the discussion should happen.

Ah, the famous "paradox of tolerance" - I figured that would show up here at some point. How does that work with MediaWiki code, I wonder? Do hateful people produce hateful MediaWiki code that drives out the good MediaWiki code?

Looks like not everybody is interested in engaging in a serious conversation.

In T323956#8438220, @Ladsgroup wrote:

In long-term, I'd be happy to have a discussion on where to draw the line for outside groups but I don't think here is where the discussion should happen.

Agreed. Where should this discussion happen?

In T323956#8439139, @Aklapper wrote:

Looks like not everybody is interested in engaging in a serious conversation.

I'd ask that we assume good faith here. Situations like this, where the problematic behaviour is entirely off site, are going to be complex and contentious, and different people are going to have different views. Not to mention, the offensive nature of the material at hand is going to make people tense when discussing it. The moral and ethical questions it raises do not have single obviously right answers and there is going to be reasonable people who have dissenting views.

I see no connection between the possibility that people use the MediaWiki engine to set up a wiki that also conveys opinions, statements and claims that not every person is comfortable with - and the possibility that the same people develop wiki extensions and make them public which are initially purely technical in nature and can help other wiki operators to simplify their work processes.

The manifesto here has more of the appearance of an online pillory that mixes things together that basically have nothing to do with each other. If you are convinced that a particular wiki is spreading untrue factual statements, slander or fake news, you can take legal action against it.

In my opinion the extensions have nothing to do with it.