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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Etiamsi omnes, ego non >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
