Brian, that's actually exactly how Wikipedia operates, as an admin in Wikipedia serving for more than 9.5 years. The only difference is that it's not punitive, and I don't think this ban was also punitive either. The ban is made to prevent further damage.
Best
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 22:23 Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Given that many of our users are from wikipedia, and as far as i understand (I am not a wikipedian), on Wikipedia, using increasing length blocks as as a punative punishment for rule infractions isn't allowed, I would guess many of our community don't see it valid to block people temporarily just because the warnings arent working out.
-- bawolff On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
That's very valid but you don't see the CoCC bans anyone who makes an unconstructive or angry comment. The problem here happens when it happens too often from one person. When a pattern emerges. Do you agree that when it's a norm for one person and warnings are not working out, the option
is
to ban to show this sort of behavior is not tolerated?
One hard part of these cases is that people see tip of an iceberg, they don't see number of reports, pervious reports and number of people who
the
user made uncomfortable so much that they bothered to write a report
about
the user for different comments and actions. That's one thing that shows the committee that it's a pattern and not a one-time thing.
Best
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 21:49 Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Expecting every single comment to specifically move things forward seems... a bit excessive, frankly. Not everyone is going to have the vocabulary to properly express themselves, let alone the skill to fully explain exactly what the issues are, why they are, how to move forward, or whatever. And even then, I would argue that having input that isn't directly doing any of this can still be useful to indicating to others that can that such might indeed be in order, that there is indeed sufficient interest to merit the effort, or sufficient confusion that there might be more issue than immediately met the eye.
A wtf from one person can help to get others involved to actually clarify, or ask followup questions, or what have you. It's not off
topic.
-I
On 14/08/18 19:41, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
Hey Petr, We have discussed this before in the thread and I and several other
people
said it's a straw man.
The problem is not the WTF or "What the fuck" and as I said before the
mere
use of profanity is not forbidden by the CoC. What's forbidden is
"Harming
the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e.
trolling).".
[1] When someone does something in phabricator and you *just* comment "WTF", you're not moving the discussion forward, you're not adding any value, you're not saying what exactly is wrong or try to reach a
consensus.
Compare this with later comments made, for example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4502463
I hope all of this helps for understanding what's wrong here.
Best
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:29 PM Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is that what really happened?
The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really
see
what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban + removal of content.
I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem, but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is
not
a language, but personal attack itself.
If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them.
Banning
someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers
away
by giving them bans that are hardly justified.
P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice.
And
randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me...
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <
dbarratt@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering
at
the
> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
and
> backstory. > That seems like really toxic behavior.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert <
george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of
the
> alleged long term abuse pattern. > > Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering
at
the
> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
and
> backstory. That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would
someone
> just answer the question? What happened leading up to this to
justify
the
> block? If it's that well known, you can document it. > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <awight@wikimedia.org
wrote:
>> Hi Petr, >> >> Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive
behavior
> and >> creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't
have to
>> waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions. >> >> I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our
community
>> friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the
means
> to >> accomplish this. I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up
to
the
>> nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives
diverge
> at >> that point. I also see lots of people on this list standing up
for
what
>> they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be
organized
> better >> so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our
shared
>> statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the
good
while
>> more effectively addressing the worst in us. >> >> This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've
been
>> thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and >> libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which
doesn't
>> handle "negative laws" [1] well. For example, the Code of Conduct
is
>> mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could
rewrite
> it >> in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to
support
> each >> other and the less powerful person in any conflict. We have a
duty
to
>> speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this
social
>> space and have to maintain it together. If you see where I'm
headed?
>> Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting
project,
> but >> it might be fun. >> >> Regards, >> Adam >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >>> I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days >>> discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for
saying
>>> "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that
the
>>> community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is
that
>>> what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of
best
>>> experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis? >>> >>> We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of >>> doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh,
come
>>> on... >>> >>> We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too
hostile
to
>>> use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules, >>> people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to
spend
>>> their free time on a different open source project. Most of us
are
>>> volunteers, we don't get money for this. >>> >>> P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put
into
>>> solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature)
it
>>> would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was
so
>>> desperate with the situation to use some swear words. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <yaron57@gmail.com
> wrote: >>>> Nuria Ruiz nuria@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>>> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the
comfort
> of >>> the >>>>> majority. >>>> This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe > anyone's >>>> safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it
seems
>> like >>>> just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority
and
>>>> majority here? >>>> >>>>> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as
an
>>> engineer >>>>> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how
technical
>> teams >>> do >>>>> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for
sure)
> but >>> the >>>>> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of
line
>> for >>>>> while. >>>> This seems like the current argument - that it's not really
about
the
>> use >>>> of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by
MZMcBride.
>> What >>>> this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought
up
> was >> a >>>> blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to
say
>>>> something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out, >> there's a >>>> lack of transparency here. >>>> >>>> -Yaron >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herbert@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l