On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < [email protected]> 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 people interacting with other people. We must never forget that and > we should treat each other with respect, specially in the online spaces > with written communication, as there is so much context lost. > > I think it is disingenuous to think this is about using offensive language > once. Keep it in mind when discussing the actions of the CoC committee, > because they are reasonable *people* doing their best to uphold our > communities and spaces to great standards in their volunteer time. Please > re-read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct to put things in > context. Some excerpts that I consider relevant: > > >> >> *In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming community, we are >> committed to making participation in Wikimedia technical projects a >> respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone, [...][...] Prolific >> contributions and technical expertise are not a justification for lower >> standards of behavior.Unacceptable behavior >> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct#Unacceptable_behavior>* >> >> - *Personal attacks, [...], or deliberate intimidation.* >> >> >> - *Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments.* >> >> >> - *[...]* >> >> >> - *Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, >> following, or any form of stalking.* >> >> >> - *[...]* >> >> >> - *Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained >> disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. >> trolling).* >> >> >> - *[...]* >> >> >> - *Attempting to circumvent a decision of the Committee or appeals >> body, e.g. unblocking someone during a period the Committee banned them.* >> >> > I am personally very thankful that we have it and of the work that the > committee members have been doing for all of us. > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:57 AM MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 likely they >> still >> >get criticized harshly). It's also a necessary job, so we should be glad >> >that someone is willing to do it (even if imperfectly, as human beings >> are >> >bound to). It's not unlike the role of Wikipedia administrators in that >> >regard. >> >> Most of Wikimedia's and most of MediaWiki's existence has progressed >> without a group of sticklers patrolling for language (or apparently tone) >> that they happen to disagree with, at that time, in that context. Here's >> you (Gergo) using the abbreviation "WTF" in May 2018: >> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192896#4170798>. It's completely >> possible for someone to fake outrage at your Phabricator Maniphest >> comment, just as it's completely possible, and perhaps probable, for >> people to fake outrage at an expanded "What the fuck." comment. >> >> Isarra wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Yes to all of this. The lack of transparency regarding how many >> "incidents" this committee handles and what level of severity they are >> means that any discussion about the necessity of having this committee is >> incredibly difficult. Someone saying "What the fuck." on a Phabricator >> task is not the same as someone threatening to kill another user. Any kind >> of flat "this is how many complaints we received" statistic will be >> incredibly misleading. (Consider a "number of crimes" statistic for any >> city that conflates vandalism with rape.) Just how necessary is this group >> that has only been around for about 15 months? Is its presence doing more >> harm than good? Framing this group as a necessity is misguided without >> substantiating the claim. Having watched similar arguments used to justify >> expanded security theater at airports and public venues, I actually think >> a sudden embrace of increased, questionable bureaucracy is pernicious. >> >> Gergo Tisza wrote: >> >- Also, do consider that MZMcBride had the option to reach out to the CoC >> >committee and ask their help in understanding exactly which of his >> >comments were problematic and in what way, and how they could be reframed >> >in a constructive way. He had the same option the previous time when the >> >committee merely warned him for a similar infraction. That he chose not >> >to is hardly the committee's fault. >> >> Most of the reason I didn't see the e-mail about my account being disabled >> is that someone decided to use the wiki software at mediawiki.org to send >> an e-mail instead of sending an e-mail directly. I don't understand this >> practice or why it's appropriate or desirable. >> >> MZMcBride >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
