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

[bawolff]

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 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
> check)?
> That's actually an argument against making cases public. The temporarily
> bans and incremental steps usually work. We had cases that one warning was
> enough and we never got any more report about the person, we had cases that
> a temporarily ban was enough (and those didn't cause a +100 email thread,
> no one knew about them expect some admins, the reporter and the person who
> got banned) and it worked. I can't disclose much. The reason that took 100
> emails until the user realizes is banned was because of they missed the
> email sent to them. It happens but not 100% of all cases. When the user
> found the email, they forwarded them to a public mailing list and defending
> themselves in public. There are ways to appeal as mentioned in the CoC, why
> that didn't happen? By forwarding such emails to public, they just make the
> tip of the iceberg public and everyone thinks "Someone got banned just for
> saying WTF" and with limited knowledge they can jump to conclusions or
> become angry. For sake of protection of the reporters, we won't show you
> how much is behind each and every case. People should not judge cases based
> on defenses of the banned person.
>
> More communication and harder job of doing so by trying to explain the
> rationale has been always the cost of more transparency. In English
> Wikipedia lots of times discussions about banning a person can be turned to
> a public circus making these threads like a quiet village in Alps in
> comparison. If you don't believe me, just search in WP:ANI.

Indeed, I don't doubt it. Although I would note that enwikipedia is
orders of magnitude bigger, so it stands to reason that it has a
magnitude more drama. Ultimately though I feel that transparency is
needed to trust that the committee is acting just and wisely (Power
corrupts. Power without oversight is pretty absolute, and you know
what they say about absolute power). I don't believe the committee
will be trusted without public oversight, and I don't think the
committee can function without trust.

>
>> However, MZMcbride has also claimed his comment was in exasperation after
> facing the same breach of the CoC you have cited, from varnent. Given that
> there 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
> where both participants are alleged to have committed the same fault. To be
> clear, im not neccesarily sugesting (nor am i neccesarily suggesting the
> converse) that the CoC is wrong in this - only that it seems full
> disclosure of the rationale seems like the only method to heal this rift
> that has opened up.
>
> When they see a violation of CoC, as outlined in the CoC, they need to send
> an email to the committee and explain the reasoning but what happened? They
> publicly accused the other party of violating CoC. This is not how it
> works. It causes more tension and ends up as really long threads. CoC can
> be good mediators in such cases if used.

While I agree that the committee can't act in a situation unless
notified, I disagree that it can only act directly on the notification
received. In fact, I would say the committee has a duty to fully
investigate any conflict it involves itself in. Have you ever seen a
dispute in the history of anything that only involved one party? At
the bare minimum when processing a complaint, the CoC should at least
ask the alleged perpetrator has anything to say for him/herself, no
matter how clear cut the case appears to be. I don't know how anyone
could claim justice is being done without even talking to the accused
party. Given that MZMcbride claimed to initially not know what's going
on, it would certainly appear that no attempt was made to investigate
his side of the situation. Additionally, this seems to be a pattern as
he is not the first person I have heard complain about sanctions being
taken against them without any notification or other communication.


> One big misconception is that lots of people think the other party reported
> them but lots of reports we've had so far came from by-passers and not
> "their enemy" and it's not to retaliate to silence their voice. I really
> encourage this type of behavior. If you see something is not right even if
> it's not related to you, stand up and report.

To clarify, I never meant to suggest otherwise then this. If I did, I apologize.

>
> Regarding unfair 

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

[MZMcBride]

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 "history" in this sense?
It sounds like you all are compiling private dossiers about users. Is that
correct? Do these records include only complaints or other parts of the
user's history as well?

MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Amir Ladsgroup]

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 sent to an email account he usually doesnt
check)?
That's actually an argument against making cases public. The temporarily
bans and incremental steps usually work. We had cases that one warning was
enough and we never got any more report about the person, we had cases that
a temporarily ban was enough (and those didn't cause a +100 email thread,
no one knew about them expect some admins, the reporter and the person who
got banned) and it worked. I can't disclose much. The reason that took 100
emails until the user realizes is banned was because of they missed the
email sent to them. It happens but not 100% of all cases. When the user
found the email, they forwarded them to a public mailing list and defending
themselves in public. There are ways to appeal as mentioned in the CoC, why
that didn't happen? By forwarding such emails to public, they just make the
tip of the iceberg public and everyone thinks "Someone got banned just for
saying WTF" and with limited knowledge they can jump to conclusions or
become angry. For sake of protection of the reporters, we won't show you
how much is behind each and every case. People should not judge cases based
on defenses of the banned person.

More communication and harder job of doing so by trying to explain the
rationale has been always the cost of more transparency. In English
Wikipedia lots of times discussions about banning a person can be turned to
a public circus making these threads like a quiet village in Alps in
comparison. If you don't believe me, just search in WP:ANI.

> However, MZMcbride has also claimed his comment was in exasperation after
facing the same breach of the CoC you have cited, from varnent. Given that
there 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
where both participants are alleged to have committed the same fault. To be
clear, im not neccesarily sugesting (nor am i neccesarily suggesting the
converse) that the CoC is wrong in this - only that it seems full
disclosure of the rationale seems like the only method to heal this rift
that has opened up.

When they see a violation of CoC, as outlined in the CoC, they need to send
an email to the committee and explain the reasoning but what happened? They
publicly accused the other party of violating CoC. This is not how it
works. It causes more tension and ends up as really long threads. CoC can
be good mediators in such cases if used.

One big misconception is that lots of people think the other party reported
them but lots of reports we've had so far came from by-passers and not
"their enemy" and it's not to retaliate to silence their voice. I really
encourage this type of behavior. If you see something is not right even if
it's not related to you, stand up and report.

Regarding unfair bias towards staff, it has lots of incorrect assumptions.
How from one case with very limited knowledge this can be judged? As I said
there is an appealing body and we trust them to be fair.

Michael:
> 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 the line.

This is very subjective and can be true but making everyone a judge is not
a good idea. Does everyone have read CoC fully? Did they have trainings or
experience with dealing harassments? Did they have access to all of the
user's history and reports made? I'm not even slightly proposing that no
one should judge CoC, this is pretty dangerous and can lead to horrible
things but there is a right way called appeal as outlined in the CoC to
make sure correct checks and balances are in place.


Isarra:
> A nice sentiment, but unrealistic. We come from too many backgrounds,
too many cultures, make too many typos, and are sufficiently bad at
communicating overall as a movement that there will be many things that
require clarification. We should always be open to making these
clarifications - this is the key to better communication, and thus
better understanding. Only from understanding can we improve things, not
just ourselves, but our processes, our work, and our movement.

I disagree with some parts. Members of The CoCC are also from different
cultures and backgrounds and they should be aware of these differences but
problematic comments are in three types: 1- These are clear violation of
CoC. A real world example is that you can't grope someone's private 

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

[MZMcBride]

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 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. In my experience, you
occasionally receive a vaguely threatening e-mail and when asking for
details, you're told that those details are private. That is, I've been
told that alleged incidents involving me cannot be discussed with me due
to privacy concerns. Perhaps someone can explain how this makes sense.

I agree with Bináris that being compared to a Nazi or the Eye of Sauron is
often a lot more offensive than a simple "What the fuck." This "conduct
committee" is a political tool and it can easily be misused or abused as
such via, for example, selective reporting and selective enforcement.

MZMcBride



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Isarra Yos]

"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 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 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 to was the unclear CoCC action
taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email
thread.

We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months
with yet another incident which cannot be explained.

-I


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos  wrote:


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 do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document
based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even
the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet
this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in
the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be
drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the
private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community
and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on
what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:

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 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 truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive
environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us

here

in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind
closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC
used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for

seeking

help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. I

would

put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed
implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all

to

step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move
forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement,
but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed
consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside

the

committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken

is

available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible
even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and
transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be
very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going
to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't
working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:

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/

<

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege

it

is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real,

that

is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no
accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of

ours.

We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike,

strive

to

bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours.

Sometimes

we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get
frustrated with each other.  But we are all in this together. And we

hold

ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other

when

we fall down and offer a helping hand instead 

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

[David Barratt]

>
>  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 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 to was the unclear CoCC action
> taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email
> thread.
>
> We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months
> with yet another incident which cannot be explained.
>
> -I
>
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document
> >> based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even
> >> the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet
> >> this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in
> >> the future.
> >>
> >> There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be
> >> drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the
> >> private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community
> >> and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on
> >> what is possible, common, and feasible.
> >>
> >> -I
> >>
> >> On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:
> >>> 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 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 truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive
>  environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us
> here
>  in the first place, then all of that was a lie.
> 
>  I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind
>  closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC
>  used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for
> seeking
>  help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. I
> would
>  put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed
>  implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all
> to
>  step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move
>  forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement,
>  but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed
>  consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside
> the
>  committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken
> is
>  available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible
>  even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials.
> 
>  Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and
>  transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be
>  very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going
>  to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't
>  working/, and we need it work.
> 
>  -I
> 
>  On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:
> > 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/
>  <
> >>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/
> > This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege
> it
>  is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real,
> >> that
>  is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no
>  accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of
> >> ours.
>  We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike,
> strive
> >> to
>  bring the best 

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

[Isarra Yos]

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 to was the unclear CoCC action 
taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email 
thread.


We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months 
with yet another incident which cannot be explained.


-I


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos  wrote:


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 do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document
based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even
the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet
this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in
the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be
drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the
private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community
and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on
what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:

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 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 truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive
environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us here
in the first place, then all of that was a lie.

I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind
closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC
used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for seeking
help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. I would
put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed
implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all to
step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move
forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement,
but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed
consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside the
committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken is
available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible
even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials.

Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and
transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be
very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going
to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't
working/, and we need it work.

-I

On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:

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/

<

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/

This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege it

is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real,

that

is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no
accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of

ours.

We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, strive

to

bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours.

Sometimes

we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get
frustrated with each other.  But we are all in this together. And we

hold

ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other

when

we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful word.

The

CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an open,
welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s
continue refining it and let’s get back to work.

Warmly,

Victoria


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion <

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion>



On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev 

wrote:

Hi!


to me that this could easily 

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

[David Barratt]

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 thankful that their are avenues to pursue
alternative resolutions.

*or are we dancer? :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_(The_Killers_song)#Lyrics

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:46 PM Isarra Yos  wrote:

> 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 hide", it was only that, our public actions ought to speak for
> > themselves.
>
> A nice sentiment, but unrealistic. We come from too many backgrounds,
> too many cultures, make too many typos, and are sufficiently bad at
> communicating overall as a movement that there will be many things that
> require clarification. We should always be open to making these
> clarifications - this is the key to better communication, and thus
> better understanding. Only from understanding can we improve things, not
> just ourselves, but our processes, our work, and our movement.
>
> -I
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Isarra Yos]

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 hide", it was only that, our public actions ought to speak for
themselves.


A nice sentiment, but unrealistic. We come from too many backgrounds, 
too many cultures, make too many typos, and are sufficiently bad at 
communicating overall as a movement that there will be many things that 
require clarification. We should always be open to making these 
clarifications - this is the key to better communication, and thus 
better understanding. Only from understanding can we improve things, not 
just ourselves, but our processes, our work, and our movement.


-I

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[David Barratt]

>
> 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 actions ought to speak for
themselves.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:20 PM Stas Malyshev 
wrote:

> 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 technical spaces (those managed by WMF,
> not sure about Github and such) is deletable by admins.
>
> > If you feel that you would have to defend your behavior, perhaps the
> > behavior ought to be self-examined.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like "if you did nothing wrong, you have
> nothing to hide". Which I hope everybody knows is not how it works -
> after all, that's why we have our privacy policies - so I assume it was
> not the intended meaning. We can have disagreement, and we can make
> mistakes, and this is why good process is important. Saying "if you're
> worried about good process, maybe it's because you're guilty" - that's
> how this comment sounded to me - is not right.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Isarra Yos]

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
behavior ought to be self-examined.


One of the complaints here has consistently been that the accusations, 
evidence, and deliberations are all not made public, so this statement 
doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


Even then, we shouldn't assume every accusation is made in good faith, 
nor that every accusation is based on correct interpretations of events. 
Misunderstandings happen, and sometimes the entire problem is lack of 
clarity, or context. Given the lack of any public access, this becomes 
particularly difficult to remedy, or even identify, in any instances 
where it does come up.


-I

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Stas Malyshev]

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 technical spaces (those managed by WMF,
not sure about Github and such) is deletable by admins.

> If you feel that you would have to defend your behavior, perhaps the
> behavior ought to be self-examined.

This sounds suspiciously like "if you did nothing wrong, you have
nothing to hide". Which I hope everybody knows is not how it works -
after all, that's why we have our privacy policies - so I assume it was
not the intended meaning. We can have disagreement, and we can make
mistakes, and this is why good process is important. Saying "if you're
worried about good process, maybe it's because you're guilty" - that's
how this comment sounded to me - is not right.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[David Barratt]

>
> 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, perhaps the
behavior ought to be self-examined.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:00 PM Isarra Yos  wrote:

> 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 reporter are confidential and they will
> > continue to be so everyone feels safe to report and be part of the
> > committee.
> > (note that you are assuming the reporter is just one person that works
> for
> > WMF).
>
> This makes me feel the opposite of safe, and is why I will never report
> anything to the committee as things stand.
>
> If someone accuses me, I have no way to defend myself. If I seek help or
> accuse another, I have no way to be sure my words won't be used against
> me, or against said other to far greater harm than I ever expected or
> intended.
>
> -I
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Isarra Yos]

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 reporter are confidential and they will
continue to be so everyone feels safe to report and be part of the
committee.
(note that you are assuming the reporter is just one person that works for
WMF).


This makes me feel the opposite of safe, and is why I will never report 
anything to the committee as things stand.


If someone accuses me, I have no way to defend myself. If I seek help or 
accuse another, I have no way to be sure my words won't be used against 
me, or against said other to far greater harm than I ever expected or 
intended.


-I

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Nuria Ruiz]

>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 will
continue to be so everyone feels safe to report and be part of the
committee.
(note that you are assuming the reporter is just one person that works for
WMF).


On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Brian Wolff  wrote:

> 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 have cited, from varnent. Given that
> there 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
> where both participants are alleged to have committed the same fault. To be
> clear, im not neccesarily sugesting (nor am i neccesarily suggesting the
> converse) that the CoC is wrong in this - only that it seems full
> disclosure of the rationale seems like the only method to heal this rift
> that has opened up.
>
> Thank you
> --
> Bawolff
>
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 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  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 
> >> 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 

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct

[Strainu]

Hello,

I also find this email disappointing. The CoC itself hasn't been seriously
questioned as a whole, only specific parts of the interpretation given by
the committee, which have led to the changes proposed on mw.org

I appreciate the encouragements to the committee members, but objectively,
your mail sounds very much like a tactic to discourage open discussion
about the shortcomings of the Code.

Strainu

Pe marți, 14 august 2018, Victoria Coleman  a scris:

> Hello everyone,
>
> The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would like to
> issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] and the
> community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the development
> and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy
> functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of Conduct
> was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic personal
> communications that limit participation and cause real harm to community
> members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone for the
> ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others badly is
> not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important movement in
> the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports
> self-governance consistent with our values.
>
> This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our projects
> and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the critical
> vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and
> forever.
>
> Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and Victoria
>
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct  wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Petr Bena]

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 checked.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

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

[Bence Damokos]

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?
>
>
>
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[David Barratt]

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 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM Petr Bena  wrote:

> 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 believe that my
> grammar and spelling should be proper everywhere possible, who keep
> notifying me when I make mistakes.
> * I am being terrorized by grammar nazis.
>
> In first sentence, half of people would just not read it because it's
> too long and dull and other half wouldn't care or understand the
> point.
>
> The second sentence, on other hand... Proper speech is often boring
> and ignored, which leads to desperation, which leads to insults and
> swear words. It's not ideal, but that's how world seems to work.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Siebrand Mazeland 
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 be used by
> everyone whenever possible.
> >
> > --
> > Siebrand
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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

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

[Petr Bena]

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”
>
> 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, authoritarian too long, stickler not pejorative enough…I’d go with 
> bully.
> _
>
> Joe Matazzoni
> Product Manager, Collaboration
> Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco
> mobile 202.744.7910
> jmatazz...@wikimedia.org
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the 
> sum of all knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:10 AM, 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?
>>
>> 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 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 origonal meaning of the word.
>>> Neither with prefixes or suffixes or in compositions.
>>> I know you didn't want to say anything bad with that and many people use
>>> this phrase, but to call somebody *any kind of a *nazi or comparing any
>>> behaviour to nazis is much more abusive then to use the f word for a lot of
>>> people in whose personal or local history nazis appear and play a role.
>>>
>>> This is not addressed to you, Petr. This is just an example, that people
>>> deal with one thing and don't even notice the other one, and don't realize
>>> the importance of this or that.
>>> ___
>>> 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

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

[Petr Bena]

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 believe that my
grammar and spelling should be proper everywhere possible, who keep
notifying me when I make mistakes.
* I am being terrorized by grammar nazis.

In first sentence, half of people would just not read it because it's
too long and dull and other half wouldn't care or understand the
point.

The second sentence, on other hand... Proper speech is often boring
and ignored, which leads to desperation, which leads to insults and
swear words. It's not ideal, but that's how world seems to work.



On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Siebrand Mazeland  wrote:
>
>> 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 be used by 
> everyone whenever possible.
>
> --
> Siebrand
>
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Joe Matazzoni]

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, authoritarian too long, stickler not pejorative enough…I’d go with 
bully.
_

Joe Matazzoni 
Product Manager, Collaboration
Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco
mobile 202.744.7910
jmatazz...@wikimedia.org

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum 
of all knowledge." 




> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:10 AM, 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?
> 
> 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 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 origonal meaning of the word.
>> Neither with prefixes or suffixes or in compositions.
>> I know you didn't want to say anything bad with that and many people use
>> this phrase, but to call somebody *any kind of a *nazi or comparing any
>> behaviour to nazis is much more abusive then to use the f word for a lot of
>> people in whose personal or local history nazis appear and play a role.
>> 
>> This is not addressed to you, Petr. This is just an example, that people
>> deal with one thing and don't even notice the other one, and don't realize
>> the importance of this or that.
>> ___
>> 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

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

[Siebrand Mazeland]

> 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 be used by everyone 
whenever possible.

--
Siebrand 


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Petr Bena]

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 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 origonal meaning of the word.
> Neither with prefixes or suffixes or in compositions.
> I know you didn't want to say anything bad with that and many people use
> this phrase, but to call somebody *any kind of a *nazi or comparing any
> behaviour to nazis is much more abusive then to use the f word for a lot of
> people in whose personal or local history nazis appear and play a role.
>
> This is not addressed to you, Petr. This is just an example, that people
> deal with one thing and don't even notice the other one, and don't realize
> the importance of this or that.
> ___
> 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

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

[Bináris]

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 origonal meaning of the word.
Neither with prefixes or suffixes or in compositions.
I know you didn't want to say anything bad with that and many people use
this phrase, but to call somebody *any kind of a *nazi or comparing any
behaviour to nazis is much more abusive then to use the f word for a lot of
people in whose personal or local history nazis appear and play a role.

This is not addressed to you, Petr. This is just an example, that people
deal with one thing and don't even notice the other one, and don't realize
the importance of this or that.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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

[Bináris]

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 general principles that most
> developers can identify with. Also, I would note that the majority of
> the current committee members are *not* US-based (from what I can
> tell) and that there is a good gender balance, so it's hard to argue
> it could get more diverse than that.

Well, perhaps I wasn't accurate enough. What I meant that the whole *need*
of such paper as a CoC is in my mind related to political correctness and
other Western trends. I was not a fan of the idea when people just said
that a CoC would be constructed becuase it is so neccessary instead of such
simple rules of normality like
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk. Either somebody
understand his sentence or any kind of detailed rules and laws of how not
to be a jerk will be useless for him.
Anyway, we are over it, and this is not worth too many word already, I just
wanted to higlight this connection and think out of the box for a moment..
A detailed philosophical and cultural discuss is really not a Wikitech
topic.


> That, together with the history
> of MZMcBride should make us give credit to the committee (and question
> some of our own stereotypes ;))
>
I am not familiar with his history, so I have no opinion here.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l