Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm going to respond inline: On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com> 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 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 parts > and then say it was a cultural difference. 2- There are cases that in the > gray area but by looking at the history of the user, the pattern is > obvious. I suggest reading WP:RUNAWAY. 3- It's a one time thing and it's in > the gray area. The CoC can and should contact the reported person and ask > for clarification. > The topic of sexual assault has come up multiple times in this thread. Its a very serious crime, and perhaps has special considerations when dealing with it. However, most problematic behaviours are not sexual assault, and we should not orient all our social structures over this one particular crime as if it was the fifth horseman of the Infocalypse. Certainly the current topic that spurned this thread has nothing to do with sexual assault/harassment. In regards to WP:RUNAWAY - Perhaps there are cases where disruptive actions are difficult to spot due to various evasive patterns. Mzmcbride seems to not be one of these cases, as he is both one of the most prominent and one of the most controversial members of our community for about a decade now. I also disagree that the CoC should clarify only over 1 time things. In my mind, a users history should not be used to determine guilt (Unless perhaps the user is under some sort of formal probation). History could maybe inform what remedies are appropriate or the seriousness of the offence. But I think that each individual offence should be judged on its individual merits. Otherwise we head down the road where "bad" or "unpopular" people have a different standard of justice applied to them than the "good" people. > Sorry for a very late answer, all work and no play makes Amir a dull boy. > Best Thank your for your well considered response. I know this can be an emotionally draining topic and I appreciate your engagement. Thanks, Brian _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
