(I was trying to take this entire weekend offline, but having failed at that for a variety of reasons, I am now giving up completely.)
MZMcBride, while I appreciate your energetic engagement, I think that it's reasonable to ask that you slow down a bit and consider alternative ways to express your disagreement. Unless I am overlooking something in that thread, I don't think that Andre was trolling.
Regarding how the Technical Code of Conduct Committee works, I agree that there should be some changes, but I suggest that proposals for change should be discussed in a separate thread and that they should be proposed in a civil way.
I suggest that you try to think about topics other than Wikimedia for 24 hours, and that you return when you feel more relaxed. Phabricator will probably still be there after a 24 hour break, and hopefully after your break you will feel better.
Thanks, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) null
I agree that reverting a clearly correct task edit with a pointless procedural objection is aggressive and not conducive to an inclusive environment.
Pointing out trollish brehaviour is positive help for self-correction.
Federico
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:26 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Pointing out trollish brehaviour is positive help for self-correction.
What you call "trollish behaviour" is to "provoke others (chiefly on the Internet) for their own personal amusement or to cause disruption". Unless there is solid evidence, when you call someone a troll you assume bad faith, and it is not helpful. On that regard I agree with the statement by TechConductCommittee.
On the other hand, I also agree also with MZMcBride that new users should be able to at least see the tasks, so I don't understand why the priority of this bug was lowered. If unapproved users cannot be treated as logged out, then there should be another solution. Like getting more information through OAuth to auto-approve users that meet certain criteria, or not allowing unapproved users to log in so that they can see the tasks (although I am not totally convinced about this).
Regards, Micru
Hi!
On the other hand, I also agree also with MZMcBride that new users should be able to at least see the tasks, so I don't understand why the priority of this bug was lowered. If unapproved users cannot be treated as logged out, then there should be another solution. Like getting more information
Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very simple workaround.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:38 AM Stas Malyshev smalyshev@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very simple workaround.
Sure, but you have to inform the user somehow about this.
Regards, Micru
Hi!
Wouldn't it be easy to just log out and read any task (or even use incognito mode/private browsing in the browser)? It is certainly a small inconvenience, but I am not sure how it is very important, given a very simple workaround.
Sure, but you have to inform the user somehow about this.
I think the easiest way would be to change the error message and add a pointer to a page which describes the issue and how to work around it. I imagine changing error message in phab shouldn't be too hard?
Pointless status changes which don't improve our issue tracking but predictably upset people are definitely provocative in nature and therefore trolls, whatever the intention behind them (which is not my interest to investigate). I suspect there might be some linguistic issue here; "troll" is sometimes used to refer to a single post or act, in which case the judgement doesn't automatically extend to the author as an indication of a general pattern.
That said, it could be worthwhile to go beyond individual incidents and listen to people who express discomfort. There is a wide perception that WMF employees are the main source of frustration and exclusion of contributors in our technical community (probably for mere statistical reasons: they spend a lot of hours in them and cannot just walk away when their positive energies are exhausted, unlike volunteers). Unprofessional and unproductive behaviour can often be caused by stress or other problems at work, which everyone in WMF should help their colleagues to address. I have a feeling that WMF employees don't get the help they need to get better.
The victims are predictably the weakest contributors, mostly volunteers like User:Ruakh (Ran), who registered only one week ago. I hope Ruakh will be offered an apology for being caught in the crossfire.
Federico
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org