Some thoughts: - First of all, I'd like to thank the Code of Conduct committee for doing their job. It's a hard job where they need to make difficult judgement calls, and are criticized harshly when they make a bad judgement and ignored at best when they make a good one (although more likely they still get criticized harshly). It's also a necessary job, so we should be glad that someone is willing to do it (even if imperfectly, as human beings are bound to). It's not unlike the role of Wikipedia administrators in that regard.
- I imagine the CoC committee sees the public announcing of bans as a kind of public shaming that the banned people might not want and do not deserve. I appreciate the intent but I think 99% of the time the banned person will just use the opportunity to make the announcement themselves, frame the issue to their benefit and maximize drama. (The kind of person who would be unwilling to do that typically does not give cause for being banned in the first place.) So it would be better if the committee made the announcement themselves (maybe not as a rule, but as a default). - Some people can tell when the use of the word "fuck" is hostile to a fellow contributor, some people can't (and some can tell very precisely and pretend not to, but let's not go there). If you are the second type of person, just don't use it, it's that easy. It's not like you are somehow handicapped by not being able to swear in public. - I find all the "why did he get banned over a single WTF comment?" questions a bit disingenuous. MZMcBride has a long history of hostility and of trying to apply meanness as a social lever to influence prioritization decisions. Those who have been around long in Wikimedia technical spaces are well aware of that, and most people asking these faux-naive questions *have* been around for long. Please don't set strawmans. If you want to argue that a pattern of lots and lots of "wtf comments" spanning multiple years is not something that should ever result in a ban, argue for that. If you really think the notification about a ban should contain the person's entire history of abuse, say that. But let's treat this discussion as a serious thing. - Also, do consider that MZMcBride had the option to reach out to the CoC committee and ask their help in understanding exactly which of his comments were problematic and in what way, and how they could be reframed in a constructive way. He had the same option the previous time when the committee merely warned him for a similar infraction. That he chose not to is hardly the committee's fault. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
