> > If we really feel people trying to interact with a banned users should find > out the user is banned, it could be displayed in their Phabricator profile > or in the Phabricator calendar (that results in a little notice icon > everywhere the username is used), although I'd hope the banned person can > opt out of that happening as it feels somewhat stigmatizing. >
It appears that this is already (somewhat) the case: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/MZMcBride/ On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:19 PM Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM Stas Malyshev <smalys...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > 1. The account was disabled without any indication (except the email to > > the person owning it, which is also rather easy to miss - not the > > admin's fault, but read on) of what and why happened, as far as I could > > see. Note that Phabricator is a collaborative space, and disabling an > > account may influence everybody who may have been working with the > > person, and even everybody that working on a ticket that this person > > commented once. If they submitted a bug and I want to verify with them > > and the account is disabled - what do I do? > > People are left guessing - did something happen? Did his user leave the > > project? Was it something they said? Something I said? Some bug? Admin > > action? What is going on? There's no explanation, there's no permanent > > public record, and no way to figure out what it is. > > > > What I would propose to improve this is on each such action, to have > > permanent public record, in a known place, that specifies: > > a. What action it was (ban, temporary ban - with duration, etc.) > > b. Who decided on that action and who implemented it, the latter - to be > > sure if somebody thinks it's a bug or mistake, they can ask "did you > > really mean to ban X" instead of being in unpleasant and potentially > > embarrassing position of trying to guess what happened with no > information. > > c. Why this action was taken - if sensitive details involved, omitting > > them, but providing enough context to understand what happened, e.g. > > "Banned X for repeated comments in conflict with CoC, which we had to > > delete, e.g. [link], [link] and [link]" or "Permanently banned Y for > > conduct unwelcome in Wikimedia spaces", if revealing any more details > > would hurt people. > > > > That proposed solution does not solve the problem you are proposing it for. > If a person I'm interacting with on Phabricator or Gerrit disappears, I'm > not going to look through CoC ban records, even if I know such a thing > exists (which most people wouldn't, even if it's well-publicized). I'll > just assume they are busy or sick or something. > > If we really feel people trying to interact with a banned users should find > out the user is banned, it could be displayed in their Phabricator profile > or in the Phabricator calendar (that results in a little notice icon > everywhere the username is used), although I'd hope the banned person can > opt out of that happening as it feels somewhat stigmatizing. > > > > 2. There seems to be no clearly defined venue to discuss and form > > consensus about such actions. As it must be clear now, such venue is > > required, and if it is not provided, the first venue that looks suitable > > for it will be roped in. To much annoyance of the people that wanted to > > use that venue for other things. > > > > I doubt that would have much effect - the person who is objecting about a > CoC action benefits from using the forum that grabs the most attention, > even if there's a more appropriate one. People who are considerate enough > not to do that are typically not the ones who end up getting banned. > _______________________________________________ > 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
