Temporarily Blocking User: installgen2
jasnell opened this issue · comments
I am temporarily banning Github user installgen2 from the nodejs org for making an inappropriate comment in the nodejs/inclusivity issues. /cc @nodejs/tsc
cool, post a screenshot next time for context (assuming the post was
removed)
On Thursday, November 12, 2015, James M Snell notifications@github.com
wrote:
I am temporarily banning Github user installgen2 for making inappropriate
comments in the nodejs/inclusivity issues. /cc @nodejs/tsc
https://github.com/orgs/nodejs/teams/tsc—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8.
Comment was deleted. Here's the screen grab from my github home page:
What's a reasonable length of time for banning, btw?
what does IRC typically do @emilyrose?
On Thursday, November 12, 2015, James M Snell notifications@github.com
wrote:
Comment was deleted. Here's the screen grab from my github home page:
[image: ban]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/439929/11138435/127aefdc-8977-11e5-9c0e-11ca9453ccbd.png
What's a reasonable length of time for banning, btw?—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).
Here's another comment that showed up in that repo. (I deleted it after consulting with @jasnell on IRC about the correct course of action.)
I think stuff like this is actually a pretty good example of why the consensus on that WG is that there needs to be a way to report these things privately. Posting to a public issue like this one means:
- Potentially rewarding the trolls by drawing attention to their activities
- Marginalized individuals may be reluctant to report harassment in a public forum like this for what I hope are obvious reasons
Can we get a tmp ban on this one too?
I'd say yes. I'm not able to do it at the moment tho.
On Nov 12, 2015 8:57 PM, "Mikeal Rogers" notifications@github.com wrote:
Can we get a tmp ban on this one too?
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).
As a bit of counterweight, it is a homonym. I've heard people comment on it before.
As counter-counterweight, the account is only three days old (but with the only other activity a reasonably worded request on the rust-rfc repo.)
Maybe try contacting that individual privately? Let's not assume malice off the bat.
Honestly when someone does something so clearly intended to be nothing other than a disruption (or worse, triggering) I ban them immediately.
If they engage me privately in a reasonable discussion on why their behavior was inappropriate we will typically negotiate a reinstatement with the understanding that they're expected to abide by the CoC.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Mikeal Rogers notifications@github.com wrote:
what does IRC typically do @emilyrose?
On Thursday, November 12, 2015, James M Snell notifications@github.com
wrote:Comment was deleted. Here's the screen grab from my github home page:
[image: ban]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/439929/11138435/127aefdc-8977-11e5-9c0e-11ca9453ccbd.png
What's a reasonable length of time for banning, btw?―
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).―
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
@bnoordhuis I think the wording ("quite frankly, brazenly phallic") makes it impossible that this comment was intended as a serious contribution to the conversation. "brazenly"? Come on...
I would agree that exact intent is difficult (if not impossible) to discern. Stupid ill-advised joke not intended to harm anyone? Mocking attempt to derail the conversation? Something in between? Who knows?
But I'm also not sure intent matters here. I have no comment (at this time) on whether a temporary block is appropriate or not in these situations other than this: I would suggest that it not be viewed as a punishment but as a mechanism to prevent abuse similar to the way systems might lock an account for some temporary period of time if there are thousands of failed logins in a short period of time.
(I also wonder if @jasnell and/or I or someone else should block out the usernames on those screenshots. No reason to call attention, positive or negative, to the users in a public forum.)
EDIT: I just updated the screenshot to obscure the username for the second comment. If anyone who doesn't already have it has a legitimate need to know it, I can provide it.
If we don't already, we need a private mailing list similar in nature to
security@nodejs.org to report these matters.
On Nov 13, 2015 4:39 AM, "Rich Trott" notifications@github.com wrote:
@bnoordhuis https://github.com/bnoordhuis I think the wording ("quite
frankly, brazenly phallic") makes it impossible that this comment was
intended as a serious contribution to the conversation. "brazenly"? Come
on...I would agree that exact intent is difficult (if not impossible) to
discern. Stupid ill-advised joke not intended to harm anyone? Mocking
attempt to derail the conversation? Something in between? Who knows?But I'm also not sure intent matters here. I have no comment (at this
time) on whether a temporary block is appropriate or not in these
situations other than this: I would suggest that it not be viewed as a
punishment but as a mechanism to prevent abuse similar to the way systems
might lock an account for some temporary period of time if there are
thousands of failed logins in a short period of time.(I also wonder if @jasnell https://github.com/jasnell and/or I or
someone else should block out the usernames on those screenshots. No reason
to call attention, positive or negative, to the users in a public forum.)—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).
Maybe try contacting that individual privately? Let's not assume malice off the bat.
@bnoordhuis I think the wording ("quite frankly, brazenly phallic") makes it impossible that this comment was intended as a serious contribution to the conversation. "brazenly"? Come on...
I would also recommend not assuming malice in general; I think everyone has had their "come on..." moments, finding out later that there are people who care deeply about a certain subject.
In this particular case, my suspicion is that both accounts may be the same person and I would suggest temp-banning them both.
- dangerrust is clearly a throwaway account, and both accounts are commenting on this issue as well: rust-lang/rfcs#1362 (comment).
- installgen2 doesn't look like a throwaway, but a lot of things that are in this user's profile & repos look less than professional so it seems like a good idea to have a conversation with said person before letting them comment again.
If we don't already, we need a private mailing list similar in nature to
security@nodejs.org to report these matters.
lot of things that are in this user's profile & repos look less than professional
I agree. If they feel so strongly about this let them just ask us to be unbanned, though I do not expect responses to improve, at least anytime soon.
How do they ask us? On IRC moderators are known and can be DM'd, what can
we do on GitHub though?
On Friday, November 13, 2015, Jeremiah Senkpiel notifications@github.com
wrote:
lot of things that are in this user's profile & repos look less than
professionalI agree. If they feel so strongly about this let them just ask us to be
unbanned, though I do not expect responses to improve, at least anytime
soon.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).
I am a bit on the fence on this one, so let me play devil's advocate. The remark could be seen as an honest observation, if it wasn't for the slight humor added to it. Which makes the intent unclear. It could be observation + pun (passable) or simply a joke for joke sake (troll-like behavior). If anything, we could have called him up on it, and make it clear what's acceptable and what not, and if he persisted on the troll-side then ban him. Wouldn't that be a good exercise in a forum about inclusivity? 😄
Would this be a good exercise in inclusivity? No.
People willing to make "risky" comments that may or may not be interpreted as offensive are not the kinds people we are concerned with being inclusive to.
The people we are concerned with making feel included are the people who are tired of dick jokes LITERALLY FUCKING EVERYWHERE.
This isn't a thought experiment. It's real life, and every moment we spend deliberating on how to creatively address trolls without sending a clear message is a moment we could have been spent proving that we actually care about attracting and retaining awesome people with diverse skills and perspectives.
STOP BEING SO SCARED OF MODERATING THE COMMUNITY B
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 13, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Alexis Campailla notifications@github.com wrote:
I am a bit on the fence on this one, so let me play devil's advocate. The remark could be seen as an honest observation, if it wasn't for the slight humor added to it. Which makes the intent unclear. It could be observation + pun (passable) or simply a joke for joke sake (troll-like behavior). If anything, we could have called him up on it, and make it clear what's acceptable and what not, and if he persisted on the troll-side then ban him. Wouldn't that be a good exercise in a forum about inclusivity?
―
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
He's obviously trolling, and we need to be able to summarily ban people that are obviously trolling.
Whatever process we land on needs to be able to swiftly bring threads where trolls show up back on track. Any concerns about their comments being miss-interpreted can easily be handled by them having a way to ask to be unbanned and explaining themselves, similar to what we have on IRC.
It's also worth noting that certain conversations are targets for trolls, any conversation in the inclusivity repo being in that category, and the only way to detract from trolls showing up is to moderate them quickly.
Rather than a mailing list can we do a private github repo the way we have for security?
The private github repo would not allow reports from individuals who are not currently a part of the nodejs organization.
@emilyrose ... I understand that you feel strongly about this (and you rightfully should) but let's please keep the language professional here -- otherwise we have no right to complain when others use the same language.
Sorry for the caps. I had just woken up and was answering emails on my phone, where there’s no bold or italic button.
I get really tired of seeing hand-wringing over the idea of actually taking moderator action. Nothing is permanent (unless we decide it should be), and the most important aspect of moderation is to eliminate disruption and maintain a safe environment. Removing someone from discussion immediately for any perceived misconduct should be done frequently and without hesitation. Resolution in private is easier on the person in question and more productive than making some giant scene in a public forum where everybody feels compelled to weigh in so they can get their little thumb emoji into the fight. There are fewer egos involved, less reputation is ‘at stake’, and it becomes less likely that the encounter will result in a tailspin.
The more we do to normalize the idea that moderators will take action whenever necessary and sort things out without judgment to those involved, the less fearful everyone will be over the possibility that they may end up being ‘moderated’. It will become a normal part of discourse and people will expect to learn from it and move on.
Thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say about this. It matters a lot to me.
On Nov 13, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Emily Rose emily@contactvibe.com wrote:
Would this be a good exercise in inclusivity? No.
People willing to make "risky" comments that may or may not be interpreted as offensive are not the kinds people we are concerned with being inclusive to.
The people we are concerned with making feel included are the people who are tired of dick jokes LITERALLY FUCKING EVERYWHERE.
This isn't a thought experiment. It's real life, and every moment we spend deliberating on how to creatively address trolls without sending a clear message is a moment we could have been spent proving that we actually care about attracting and retaining awesome people with diverse skills and perspectives.
STOP BEING SO SCARED OF MODERATING THE COMMUNITY B
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 13, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Alexis Campailla <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:
I am a bit on the fence on this one, so let me play devil's advocate. The remark could be seen as an honest observation, if it wasn't for the slight humor added to it. Which makes the intent unclear. It could be observation + pun (passable) or simply a joke for joke sake (troll-like behavior). If anything, we could have called him up on it, and make it clear what's acceptable and what not, and if he persisted on the troll-side then ban him. Wouldn't that be a good exercise in a forum about inclusivity?
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #8 (comment).
Yep, understood. For me it's not so much a question of if action should be taken but how. A moderation email endpoint seems to be the right entry point and a private github repo for tracking and discussing specific incidents would be perfect. Let's get these going today.
I've yet to see someone complain about passionate language (correct me if I'm wrong here).
I haven't directed any aggression at an individual, and my comments have been on topic. If my comments are truly deemed unprofessional please remove me from the mailing list.
I'm not here to be derailed or listen to tone arguments.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:02 AM, James M Snell notifications@github.com wrote:
The private github repo would not allow reports from individuals who are not currently a part of the nodejs organization.
@emilyrose ... I understand that you feel strongly about this (and you rightfully should) but let's please keep the language professional here -- otherwise we have no right to complain when others use the same language.
―
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
I have created the private moderation repository (https://github.com/nodejs/moderation) and have limited it to members of the @nodejs/tsc, @nodejs/ctc and @nodejs/inclusivity groups for now. We can use that to track these kinds of issues in the future.
Also, request to create the email endpont: nodejs/email#5
Observations:
A random user has contributed nothing but phallic emoji to an important thread specifically intended to fix the problems we have with inclusivity, and you're all over here discussing whether or not you should implement a temporary ban... (dot dot dot)
When the community can see that moderators believe this is a user who deserves to just be let back in after some arbitrary amount of time; I can see why people feel unsafe in our community.
Furthermore, when I comment as the only person in this thread who seems to be personally affected by these issues (incessantly since 2011; ask me for logs if you need proof), you have the audacity to respond by policing my tone.
We need help.
temporary ban... (dot dot dot)
Being that we don't have a proper process in place I think James was just being cautious with the "temporary" part, while trying to resolve the issue quickly.
i'm here to support @emilyrose as wellas the other women who haven't spoken up.
i think we need to take swift and clear action, and it seems we all agree with that. the specfic implementation will be tricky but im glad we are tackling it head on now.
another note: we need to remember that we need to deal with both the harrassers and the harrassed. it's easy to dive into implementation- thats a naturally tendency devs have. but these actuons hurt our community members and we should also take time to make sure they are doing ok. just acknowledging that goes a long way.
also ugh phone typing. and i cant edit comments in the mobile view. le sigh.
@emilyrose ... Please note that my first actions were to delete the comment and block the user. Only after that did I raise the discussion. Given that I'm not here with the intent of imposing my personal opinion or will on the community, raising the point for discussion seems quite an appropriate action.
And yes, as a matter of respect for everyone, I would appreciate it if we could keep foul language out of the discussion. Thank you.
All the admins are easily contactable. I think banning should be immediate. Both these people have shown by their actions that they are no interested in actively helping the community.
Removing the tsc-agenda tag. Given that we all seem to be largely in agreement, there seems little reason to discuss on the next TSC call.
I propose making the ban for both accounts permanent. If they wish to object, they can petition the TSC directly.
All the admins are easily contactable.
Unfortunately not :( The list of owners of this org isn't listed anywhere publicly accessible. One of the things we should fix as we write up the moderation process and fill it with the right people to do moderation.
@mikeal ... in nodejs/email#5 I propose setting up a report@nodejs.org mailbox for precisely that purpose. Can we get that going today?
@mikeal that is a good point. Also in general since having a way to email someone in private is a necessary for certain issues.
I'd just like to say that this whole thing has been quite illuminating. It's now quite clear how little process we have in place to deal with actual violations in even the simplest context. That said, I'm happy with how swiftly the delete/ban happened even in the absence of process.
Let's strive to do better and hopefully move the moderation responsibilities to people best suited to identify harassment rather than falling to the people who happen to be org owners for entirely historic reasons.
For now, it's likely appropriate to close this issue here. We can continue the discussion in the private https://github.com/nodejs/moderation repo.
if this is no longer on the TSC agenda id like to add it to the inclusivity wg agenda, with a plan for bringing it to the TSC whenever the meeting next occurs.
everyone agrees in principle but we still have a ways to go to make this more effectively and safely enforcable.
thoughts?
@jasnell because moderation is going to be foundation-wide let's keep CTC off that repo and just have the TSC (right now they are the same but that could change in the future).
@ashleygwilliams ... seems reasonable. We should have a blocking/moderation policy in place and documented and that seems like a perfect bit of work for the inclusivity WG.
@mikeal ... works for me
@ashleygwilliams +1 . The best approach would be to kick off a discussion in the first inclusivity meeting. Once the WG writes up a policy I would send a PR to the node/TSC repo with the policy. If there are no objections it will just be merged, if there are objections it'll get the tsc-agenda tag and end up in a meeting.
I appreciate that we are making actionable items from this incident. Thank you, everyone.
As for my "foul" language: I will certainly try to curb my enthusiasm but I'm not willing to make promises when it comes to making full use of language to make my point. I have not and will not attack anyone with my words, but if the occasional F-bomb when it's appropriate is really a deal killer then please do remove me from discussions.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 13, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Mikeal Rogers notifications@github.com wrote:
@ashleygwilliams +1 . The best approach would be to kick off a discussion in the first inclusivity meeting. Once the WG writes up a policy I would send a PR to the node/TSC repo with the policy. If there are no objections it will just be merged, if there are objections it'll get the tsc-agenda tag and end up in a meeting.
―
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
This thread is pitiful. "Triggering", "Marginalized", "Inclusivity". I thought it was satirical at first. Don't you people have software to write?
I also want to stand up for @emilyrose on the use of foul language. Emily's comments were not directing anger at anyone, and they have every right to be angry. Calling on Emily's use of foul language is a classic case of tone policing. I highly encourage everyone here to read up on tone policing: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument, because doing so is bullshit
@jaw-sh This is an open source community project. We have people to work with first and foremost.
I keep seeing the word "phallic" being thrown around. How are eggplants phallic?
Recommend that we lock this thread for non-contributors at this point.
+1 on locking