Hi! > This mailing list is not an appropriate forum for airing your grievances > with the way the Code of Conduct Committee has handled this matter.
Very well may be so, but I think this case has something that is, IMHO, very on-topic for this mailing list, as a venue to discuss running this technical project. I think regardless of the merits of the particular CoCC decision, there's something wrong in how it happened. Namely: 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. It doesn't have to be 100% detail, but it has to be something more that people quietly disappearing. Establishing such a place and maintaining this record should be one of the things that CoCC does. 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 would propose to fix it by providing such venue, and clearly specifying it in the same place where the action is described, as per above. Again, establishing and advertising such place should be something that CoCC does. It is clear to me - and I think to anybody seeing the volume of discussion this generated - that we need improvement here. We can do better and we should. -- Stas Malyshev [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
