Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 03:14, bawolff wrote: > Thank your for your well considered response. I know this can be an > emotionally draining topic and I appreciate your engagement. > > Thanks, > Brian This has been one of the longer email discussion threads, itself made controversial due to

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm going to respond inline: On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > I write all answers in one place: > > Brian: >> So we are going to magically assume that somehow this block is going to > change mcbride's behaviour when it took a 100

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Amir Ladsgroup wrote: >[...] Did they have access to all of the user's history and reports made? Amir Ladsgroup also wrote: > [...] 2- There are cases that in the gray area but by looking at the >history of the user, the pattern is obvious. Can a user, such as myself, view his or her own

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

I write all answers in one place: Brian: > So we are going to magically assume that somehow this block is going to change mcbride's behaviour when it took a 100 message email thread before he even found out the reason he was blocked (which differs from the implied reason in the email which was

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

David Barratt wrote: >> the unclear CoCC action > >Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a >better way to ask would be: What do you gain from getting more clarity? I get the feeling you've never interacted with this group of people or similar groups within

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

"We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months with yet another incident which cannot be explained." On 15/08/18 23:08, David Barratt wrote: the unclear CoCC action Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a better way to ask would

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > the unclear CoCC action > Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a better way to ask would be: What do you gain from getting more clarity? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:58 PM Isarra Yos wrote: > On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote: > >> yet this is clearly

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote: yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future. Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an incident that needs to be avoided in the future. To clarify, the incident I was referring

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

I did not mean to imply that we would not make errors in communicating with one another, we are only human* after all. :) I believe we can do so with civility and respect and by giving the other the benefit of the doubt, but, if for whatever reason, someone feels that can no longer happen, I am

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On 15/08/18 22:40, David Barratt wrote: In this particular case, it was based on a comment that was deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/20180803232905/https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4475216 And no, my intention was not to imply "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > In this particular case, it was based on a comment that was deleted. > https://web.archive.org/web/20180803232905/https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4475216 And no, my intention was not to imply "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", it was only that, our public

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On 15/08/18 22:08, David Barratt wrote: This isn't a he said, she said type of issue, it's based on evidence that is public and difficult (if not impossible) to delete. If you feel that you would have to defend your behavior, perhaps the

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi! > This isn't a he said, she said > type of issue, it's > based on evidence that is public and difficult (if not impossible) to > delete. In this particular case, it was based on a comment that was deleted. And of course most content in our

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > If someone accuses me, I have no way to defend myself. > This isn't a he said, she said type of issue, it's based on evidence that is public and difficult (if not impossible) to delete. If you feel that you would have to defend your behavior,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On 15/08/18 20:50, Nuria Ruiz wrote: Given that here is a narrative going around that the CoC is unfairly biased in favour of staff, would you mind sharing what deliberations took place that resulted in sactions against only one of the participants in a dispute The deliberations as well as the

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

>Given that >here is a narrative going around that the CoC is unfairly biased in favour >of staff, would you mind sharing what deliberations took place that >resulted in sactions against only one of the participants in a dispute The deliberations as well as the reporter are confidential and they

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Wiktionary, such a nice website, I wonder who operates it... I think "language police" is a winner. So again: I hope our community won't turn into a bunch of language cops and put focus back on technical awesome things instead. Now back to work, there is still big backlog of tasks last time I

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Pedants? Prescriptivists? Etc... https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/grammar_Nazi On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, 18:10 Petr Bena, wrote: > Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" > with absence of word "nazi" so that it still has same effect and > doesn't sound dull? > > >

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Slang terms, typically do not maintain the same meaning and intention when used crossed-culturally (otherwise they wouldn't be slang terms). To preserve the intended meaning, I would suggest using a term or phrase that conveys what you are trying to say in a more cross-cultural way. On Wed, Aug

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi Joe, Of course I am not talking Amir, he's a nice guy. I think "language bully" probably works here. Thanks for tip ;) On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Joe Matazzoni wrote: > Petr asks: >> Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" > with absence of word "nazi” >

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

But that not only does sound very dull, but it doesn't even sound like you don't like or disagree with such behaviour See the difference between these two sentences, which are trying to say same thing using your definition of "grammar nazi": * My posts are constantly checked by people who

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Petr asks: > Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" with absence of word "nazi” Interesting question (in the abstract—meaning as long as we’re not talking about Amir). There is no standard phrase that comes to mind. Tyrant and despot are too classy,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> Op 15 aug. 2018 om 18:10 heeft Petr Bena het volgende > geschreven: > > Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" > with absence of word "nazi" so that it still has same effect and > doesn't sound dull? A person who believes proper grammar (and spelling) should

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Out of curiousity, how would you say "grammar nazi" or "language nazi" with absence of word "nazi" so that it still has same effect and doesn't sound dull? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Bináris wrote: > 2018-08-13 18:35 GMT+02:00 Petr Bena : > >> Is that >> what we turned into? From highly

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-13 18:35 GMT+02:00 Petr Bena : > Is that > what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of best > experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis? > Folks, please never use the word "nazi" for people in any context except definitely stating they are nazis in the

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 22:51 GMT+02:00 Strainu : > 2018-08-08 18:53 GMT+03:00 Bináris : > > This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to > > an international community. > > FWIW, the CoC itself is quite neutral and contains (at least in my > view) no American specificities, only

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

So we are going to magically assume that somehow this block is going to change mcbride's behaviour when it took a 100 message email thread before he even found out the reason he was blocked (which differs from the implied reason in the email which was sent to an email account he usually doesnt

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

What I think has people talking past one another here is that the "final straw" that led to the ban wasn't a per se ban-worthy offense, *and* there is no clear standard or process for determining when past patterns of behavior can be taken into account in determining whether a given action crosses

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Thanks Amir for clarifying this. This is the first I remember hearing this was the reason for the sactions against mcbride, and differs significantly from what I assumed was the reason. However, MZMcbride has also claimed his comment was in exasperation after facing the same breach of the CoC you

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

It's probably also worth noting that that is not the standard imposed by the quoted CoC line. On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 20:49 Isarra Yos, wrote: > Expecting every single comment to specifically move things forward > seems... a bit excessive, frankly. Not everyone is going to have the > vocabulary to

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

How are these arguments against the Code of Conduct Commitee's actions not arguments that the status quo for the technical community is fine and has always been fine? Is it the opinion here that we a very welcoming environment to new and estabilished contributors alike and that no one has ever

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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.

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > 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 wrote: > I keep seeing "abusers" and I

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Am 14.08.2018 um 09:18 schrieb Adam Wight: > 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. [Note: this is in the abstract,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Nuria Ruiz 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

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/09/2018 04:55 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > The main problem here that needs to be solved is communicating > what the problem was in a manner that is clear to the parties whom > the CoC committee seeks to deter. A one-week ban is not going to >

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, On 08/08/2018 03:08 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > I disabled the account and now I disabled it again. It's part of a > CoC ban. We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" > functionality from mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban.

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

>After several negative examples discussed in the last few months on this list,* this action conclusively proves in my eyes the failure of the Code of conduct to be a positive force for our community, at least so far >and in the present conditions. The CoC will prioritize the safety of the

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

I'd like to echo/reinforce Adam's conclusion: On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Adam Wight wrote: > > Thank you for your energy and insights, and I hope we can work together to > root out the bad decisions and corruption, without this nonsense of having > to bail you out of Phabricator jail every

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this > in the future. > Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an incident that needs to be avoided in the future. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos wrote: > It's sounds nice, but

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is impossible to

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernan...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Thanks Ori for sharing your perspective, you are alone. > Sorry, Ori, you are *NOT *alone. :/ > > Thanks Amir and Lucie for sharing your perspectives. They are very much > appreciated. > > We are

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

This is not occurring on enwiki; however, if it was, given that this is a longstanding user I would expect to see a pattern of warnings, a long set of diffs for prior incidents, clear documentation of both the rule *and* the social context for the problem before someone gets blocked for a week. If

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Thanks Ori for sharing your perspective, you are alone. Thanks Amir and Lucie for sharing your perspectives. They are very much appreciated. We are people interacting with other people. We must never forget that and we should treat each other with respect, specially in the online spaces with

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Gergo Tisza wrote: >- First of all, I'd like to thank the Code of Conduct committee for doing >their job. It's a hard job where they need to make difficult judgement >calls, and are criticized harshly when they make a bad judgement and >ignored at best when they make a good one (although more

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called a "lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not be missed. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos wrote: > An interesting

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > If we really feel people trying to interact with a banned users should find > out the user is banned, it could be displayed in their Phabricator profile > or in the Phabricator calendar (that results in a little notice icon > everywhere the username is used), although I'd hope the banned

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted in none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on this list is

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM Stas Malyshev wrote: > 1. The account was disabled without any indication (except the email to > the person owning it, which is also rather easy to miss - not the > admin's fault, but read on) of what and why happened, as far as I could > see. Note that Phabricator

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Some thoughts: - First of all, I'd like to thank the Code of Conduct committee for doing their job. It's a hard job where they need to make difficult judgement calls, and are criticized harshly when they make a bad judgement and ignored at best when they make a good one (although more likely they

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi everyone, I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a remote mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi! > to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If the > block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might be > hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public of > everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Am Do., 9. Aug. 2018 um 13:50 Uhr schrieb Aryeh Gregor : > To begin with, punishment of any infraction that occurred in a > publicly-accessible forum such as Phabricator can be public. If the > infraction itself can remain public, the punishment for it can also. > That seems like a good starting

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

I don't yet. :) But please follow our work on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/2660/ your participation and feedback would be awesome! On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM David Barratt wrote: > However, there will have to be a significant number of major changes before > that can be a reality. > Which kind of changes? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

> > So basically your're saying that the wiki way of doing things, were > blocks and bans are public and often contain the offending diff, is > bad and should not be followed. Is the CoC committee really the venue > where such a decision should be made? Shouldn't the wiki way be the > default

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On 09/08/18 07:40, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: No, it was not thoughtful. What actually happened is that the other users are now submerged with dozens of emails analyzing that interjection. Sure, it's pretty easy to ignore this thread or even mute it in one's email reader, but one could just as well

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-09 15:12 GMT+03:00 Lucie Kaffee : > I understand the wish for a more transparent process. (What a good thing > there is the possibility to suggest amendments to the CoC!) > But I would like you to consider the following: Someone, who was warned, or > even blocked, might change their

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hello everyone, I am also putting off my hat as someone in the CoC committee and not speaking for the committee but for myself. There are a few points I would like you to consider. First of all, we are volunteers in the committee as well. I do this in my free time as much as most of the people

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:13 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Are you sure about that? I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ > arguing that it's the use of the word "fuck" that was problematic here. If > I had written "Why did you do that?!" instead of "What the fuck.", do you > think I would have had

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: > 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't > clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of > sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those > too? And if

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-09 12:10 GMT+03:00 Fæ : > > > No Amir, you cannot build a logical post-hoc rationale for this block > for the debatably single inappropriate use of WTF, if it hangs on > cherry picking an essay from the English Wikipedia as "positive > evidence", while choosing to ignore "negative

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 12:08 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup : > We sent the user an email using the "Email to user" functionality from > mediawiki.org the moment I enforced the ban. > What happens if a user has this function disabled? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

The CoC does not exist in a vacuum and is itself ultimately only has any authority through the largess of the WMF board and its resolutions. The Code of Conduct Committee is dangerously arrogant if its members believe they are independent of the WMF's policies or WMF legal. For the Committee to

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 23:29 GMT+03:00 Amir Ladsgroup : > Taking my coc hat off, I'm not representing the committee at all. > Several things have been misunderstood imo. I want to address them. > 1) The use of profanity is not prohibited by the COC, using them against > others or for unconstructive reasons

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 21:42 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) : > The message which was sanctioned was even of an especially thoughtful > kind, in my opinion, because it didn't attempt to submerge the other users > with walls of text, politically correct tirades or otherwise charged > statements. It was merely

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 23:32 GMT+02:00 Ori Livneh : > The responses to that included on-wiki comments telling me to go > fuck myself > > > You said it! You said it! :-) https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqkh ___ Wikitech-l mailing list

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi! > 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't > clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of > sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those > too? And if not, where and who supposed to draw the line

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Hi! > This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances > with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter. Very well may be so, but I think this case has something that is, IMHO, very on-topic for this mailing list, as a venue to discuss running this

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Wikimedia-l is not a technical mailing list. That said I personally think that any sort of effective CoC would have take actions on other spaces into account when it is about a matter that is in coc juridsiction (otherwise harrasment would just move off wiki). The more concerning part to me is

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:08 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > > The wikimedia-l mailing list is very specifically not within the purview > of the mediawiki.org "Code of Conduct" or its associated committee. CoC very explicitly states that it applies to "technical mailing lists

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Adam Wight wrote: >Silencing anyone is rarely appropriate, but your behavior in this earlier >thread was gross enough that I decided against participating. In fact, I >had my own concerns about the new WMF site but you had already created a >toxic dynamic, effectively losing me (and undoubtedly

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM MZMcBride wrote: > I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ arguing that it's the use of > the word "fuck" that was problematic here. > This is disingenuous, MZMcBride. In the "New Wikimedia Foundation has soft launched!" thread, you also wrote: > I think this

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:13 PM MZMcBride wrote: > If I had written "Why did you do that?!" instead of "What the fuck.", do > you > think I would have had my Phabricator account disabled for a week? > No, but asking "are you for real?" would have been similarly problematic in my view. The

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

And as was already pointed out, the word "fuck" has appeared over 500 times in Phabricator discussions without issue. If you use the word "fuck" to be hostile, that's still being hostile. The fact that it's an expletive is what makes it effective at conveying hostility. Arguing that that's a ban

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Ryan Kaldari wrote: >It's possible to highlight abuses while still being respectful and >collegial. No one is seriously arguing that criticism should be banned (or >the word "fuck"). Are you sure about that? I think the Code of Conduct Committee _is_ arguing that it's the use of the word "fuck"

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

While what are we arguing then? I think i have lost track. -- brian On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > It's possible to highlight abuses while still being respectful and > collegial. No one is seriously arguing that criticism should be banned (or > the word "fuck"). > > On Wed,

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

It's possible to highlight abuses while still being respectful and collegial. No one is seriously arguing that criticism should be banned (or the word "fuck"). On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:50 PM MZMcBride wrote: > Ori Livneh wrote: > >MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Ori Livneh wrote: >MZMcBride has a very good ear for grievances, and he knows how to use his >considerable social clout to draw attention to them, and then use words >as a kind of lightning-rod for stoking outrage and focusing it on >particular targets. I'm going to paraphrase what you're writing

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, Ori Livneh wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:48 PM bawolff wrote: >> >> MZMcbride (and any other individual contributor) is at a power >> disadvantage here relative to how the foundation is an organized >> group > > Have you been on the receiving end of an

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Bringing back a dispute from 2012 over a ban in 2018 is very reaching. Punishment should have been applied for that case at that time, not retroactively applied later on. If 'unbelievable anonymous hate mail' is true, then I don't see why they shouldn't have been banned at that time. However the

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:48 PM bawolff wrote: > MZMcbride (and any other individual contributor) is at a power > disadvantage here relative to how the foundation is an organized > group Have you *been* on the receiving end of an MZMcBride diatribe? I was, when barely two months into my role as

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Er, apologies for my previous email, I may have gone a bit overboard with it. Is it generally improper to blame the cold medicine, in such cases, bow out, and generally just go straight to bed? Because I blame the cold medicine. Again, sorry about that. -I

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Having personally been subject of a case of sexual harassment at an unrelated event a few years back where I was supposedly the victim, I have to wonder even about those. Seriously, what the hell /is/ sexual harassment? Because in my case, apparently me butting into a conversation just to be

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 17:44 GMT+03:00 Dan Garry : > On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk wrote: > >> Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions publicly? >> Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances. > > > Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this >

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 18:53 GMT+03:00 Bináris : > This happens when American culture and behavioral standard is extended to > an international community. FWIW, the CoC itself is quite neutral and contains (at least in my view) no American specificities, only general principles that most developers can

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Errata: make cases possible --> make cases public whenever possible Gmail has tricked on me. 2018-08-08 22:46 GMT+02:00 Bináris : > > > 2018-08-08 22:29 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup : > >> 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't >> clarify points. But these secrecy

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

2018-08-08 22:29 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup : > 3) not being able to discuss cases clearly also bothers me too as I can't > clarify points. But these secrecy is there for a reason. We have cases of > sexual harassment in Wikimedia events, do you want us to communicate those > too? Nope. > And if

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Taking my coc hat off, I'm not representing the committee at all. Several things have been misunderstood imo. I want to address them. 1) The use of profanity is not prohibited by the COC, using them against others or for unconstructive reasons is. If you see the whole discussion, you could clearly

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

Okay, in all seriousness, ArbCom does work. It does a good /enough/ job, when you weigh it against the alternatives. I'm not really sure how, at the sorts of scales we're looking at, anything would do much better. While our technical communities operate on a much smaller scale, this still

Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled

If maximizing effectiveness was the only concern, we could just block all the users. -- Brian On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Are you suggesting that ArbCom does a good job of maintaining a collegial, > harassment-free environment on English Wikipedia? Just wanted to

  1   2   >