Brian, that's actually exactly how Wikipedia operates, as an admin in Wikipedia serving for more than 9.5 years. The only difference is that it's not punitive, and I don't think this ban was also punitive either. The ban is made to prevent further damage.
Best On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 22:23 Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
