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 <ladsgr...@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 <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
