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
