Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm going to respond inline:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)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