But this wasn't an unconstructive comment. And as a designer, angry
comments are particularly useful, to a point, as they help give us
insight into our users and thus better prioritise problems that require
immediate address. You cite my later response as an example of better
communication, and yet without comments such as MZMcBride's to highlight
the nature of the situation, I would never have thought there any NEED
to leave such a comment.
Now I actually sort of wonder if, had I been less busy at the time being
sick and backlogged (still backlogged, but wow did things get out of
hand) and just replied then when he originally brought the situation to
my attention, all of this might have been avoided?
-I
On 14/08/18 20:02, Amir Ladsgroup 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 <zhoris...@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.
[1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
Best
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:29 PM Petr Bena <benap...@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 <dbarr...@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.herb...@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 <awi...@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 <benap...@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 <yaro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nuria Ruiz <nu...@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.herb...@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
