Nope! But this just seems /worse/ in practice.
-I
On 08/08/18 20:12, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Are you suggesting that ArbCom does a good job of maintaining a collegial, harassment-free environment on English Wikipedia? Just wanted to double-check ;)
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On other projects, we have community-elected groups among whom we see oversight in the form of new members upon subsequent elections who can audit the backlogs, and who conduct their primary functions in the open and issue clear statements when a matter does indeed merit not discussing openly, using their discretion as to when to apply privacy and similar concerns specifically. Generally speaking, most users actually trust their discretion in those matters.
Nothing about /this/ particular issue appears to merit any such concern, and because none of the above holds here, either, I can't say I necessarily trust this committee to make that call to begin with.
-I
On 08/08/18 19:35, Ryan Kaldari wrote: With all the clamoring for transparency, has anyone considered the privacy implications for publicly documenting every complaint against a Phabricator user? That seems like it could have just as much of a chilling effect on participation, if not more, than the idea that you can be blocked for being rude.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree that profanity should not be used around Wikimedia, but there's a large gap between "things we ideally wouldn't have", "things an employee of a Wikimedia institution should be fired for", and "things a volunteer contributor should be blocked for" (in that order). (The acronym "wtf" has been used 532 times on Phabricator according to search results (including some by the relevant CoCC members), and 10 times fully spelled out.)
Just to remind everyone of some background, the CoC came into existence after having a policy tag edit-warred onto it after a non-consensus-backed discussion regarding a particular section was self-closed as consensus reached for the entire document, attempting to establish an unaccountable and secretive Committee that may ban users for any of a number of extremely vaguely worded violations including "attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee", appoints its own members (none of which were community-selected), can veto any changes to the CoC, and recently claimed absolute authority over all development-oriented spaces on all Wikimedia projects (including VPT, gadget/script/module talk pages) on a "consensus" of a single user. It's quite clearly a completely illegitimate institution.
But leaving all that aside, this was a terrible decision. I recommend an immediate unblock.
-- Yair Rand
2018-08-08 13:02 GMT-04:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:
In general I would prefer to keep vulgar language out of the projects, as it doesn't bring anything positive. Research shows that swearing causes stress [1], and there are many ways
of
showing dissatisfaction without using coarse language.
For instance, I would appreciate if there would be more interest in using Nonviolent Communication, as it is more effective in getting the message across than with negativity. Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ
Regards, Micru
[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0022341
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I called a very first world problem. This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended
to
an international community. It is not rally polite to write that F-thing (how many times has it
been
written directly or abbreviated or indirectly in this very
discussion?).
But to ban a member of the technical community from the working
environment
is really harmful. Although we do block people from editing Wikipedia, too, but we do it publicly, clearly, comparably, and by the rules of the local community,
not
by hidden rules of admin board. And not for one ugly word. This secret banning undermines the community, and therefore it is destructive.
Additionally, as code of conduxt itself was discussed here, the coc
file
case was discussed here a few weeks ago, and this is the place where
most
Phabricatos users communicate, this is a good place to discuss this
case,
too. Publicity is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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