@Nemo: It could be that the priority change was not seen as aggressive, and
probably it was not initially as we have the "be bold" tradition. However,
that changes as the issue heats up and becomes an edit war. In this case it
didn't get to that point (less than 3 reverts, although the reverts might
be perceived more strongly in Phabricator, and because the person doing
them had a position of power). Linguistically it is also challenging
because maybe the person using the word "troll" was not aware that it could
have been interpreted as "assuming bad faith". Even if an act is qualified
as "troll" there is some judgement about something that the author of the
action might have not intended.
It is not fair to put all the blame on WMF employees, they might be part of
the issue, but every coin has two sides. WMF employees could improve their
openness with the frustration they get from the community, and also the
community should be more willing to be constructive and understanding.
Probably neither the WMF employees nor the community is getting the help
needed to collaborate better, but whose role is to provide it?
I agree that normally the weakest suffer the most, and that somebody
(again, who?) should take the lead in this case to explain to the
contributor what happened and offer an apology.
@Fae: indeed friendly mediation seems more appropriate in this case, but
again, by who? The people involved in this case didn't have anywhere to go,
so I find it understandable that they resort to their only available option
right now.
If the TCC wants to create a friendly environment, they cannot tackle
unfriendliness in an unfriendly way (unless there are no other options, or
the gravity of the situation requires so).
I am not worried about the lack of transparency of the TCC, because
actually it should be done that way to protect its participants (cfr.
Chatham House Rule), but of course they could document how they reached
difficult decisions. It could be useful to assess future cases.
Micru
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:19 AM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The lack of transparency of TCC actions and assessment
processes is
troubling. TCC was supposed to be a means to handle serious misuse or
harassment, not to use steel boots to stamp out all "non-positivity".
Trivial cases like this should best be handled firstly by off project
grown-up mediation, rather than TCC warnings for which the next step may be
a global ban.
Honestly, the TCC's actions have looked so authoritarian to my eyes, I fear
I am adding evidence to a case for a permanent ban of my account by writing
non-positive words here. The TCC is guilty of creating a hostile
environment that appears unwelcoming and threatens volunteers in all
"technical spaces".
Fae
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, 22:46 MZMcBride, <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>Please refrain from name calling, the CoC has received some reports
about
users
being offended by you calling them trolls. While those comments
might not have been malicious they are not constructive and do not
contribute to a welcoming environment for contributors.
Best
--
This email was sent by TechConductCommittee to MZMcBride by the "Email
this user" function at MediaWiki. If you reply to this email, your email
will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email
address to them.
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. employees have blocked the ability of new users
to report bugs or file feature requests or even read the issue tracker.
But yes, please focus on me calling Andre a troll for resetting the
priority of <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197550>. My single
comment
("andre__: Such a troll.") is clearly
what contributes to an unwelcoming
environment for contributors, not blocking them from reading the site and
demanding that they be vetted first. Great work, all.
A pseudo-focus on "civility" while you take a hard-line and skeptical
view
toward outsiders. Maybe these people are
auditioning for roles in the
Trump Administration. :-)
I'm mostly forwarding this garbage here so that there's some better and
more appropriate context when, in a few months, someone says "well, the
code of conduct committee has dealt with dozens of incidents! Clearly
it's
necessary!" The people pushing this campaign
for more bureaucracy have
repeatedly declined to provide specifics about incidents because it's
pretty obvious that nobody would take them seriously (and rightfully!) if
there were a clearer understanding of what they're actually doing.
Best!
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non