Blocked Daniel J Wilcox for personal attacks

I get that this is appropriate for trolling, but is there a previous issue where we warned him first? Isn't non-spam blocking usually a community decision?

My question is related to davereid's: Do we have a policy or "best practice" about this, and are we following that policy? Is a policy necessary? How would we go about developing one?

Unfortunately, while the DCOC would help Daniel to understand how unuseful his attack is, it is missing the conflict resolution part at this point, so doesn't help *us* deal with this kind of issue.

I'm not sure what the user's history is WRT trolling, but it seems like they should have been at least provided a warning that their post wasn't in line with our community Code of Conduct first.

While we do not have a formal conflict resolution process as part of the DCOC at this time, it does state that "When we disagree, we consult others." I'm wondering who else Amazon consulted before taking this action.

@Amazon - Here's the process for blocking users that you outlined in http://drupal.org/node/759522#comment-2819652

Process for blocking Drupal.org and Groups.drupal.org user account:

One of the admins on drupal.org or groups.drupal.org warns the user about their activity on the sites. The user does it again and they get blocked for a time period as a cool out.

After the cool out period, the user's account is unblocked. If they repeat the behavior their account is permanently blocked, as well as any subsequent accounts they create.

Has this been done before, yes. I've done it twice. One time the user was blocked permanently for spamming the hosting forums. The second time the account was blocked because the users mail account was hacked. They regained control and I unblocked the account.

I will say that wasting Drupal.org and groups.drupal.org admin time is not something that should be taken lightly. So it's better to block someone's account and see if they want to be respectful of the community norms rather than waste valuable community management time.

What I'm wondering is if, before you blocked the user, you or another admin provided the user with a warning, as per the process you defined above.

The back-story/history behind that seemingly one-off comment is at http://drupal.org/node/908744. Daniel, and a few others, spat venom all over that thread and many of us tried to explain rationally why that wasn't cool (and, beyond that, why it was actually damaging to the community). Unfortunately, it didn't help, and looks like he's only continuing it over in a new thread now.

However, as disappointed as I am with Daniel's behaviour, and as hurt/angry as it makes me when people who work their asses off on making Drupal better get subjected to that kind of BS, I do think that we need to weigh the decision to ban a member of our community very seriously. Due to the centralized nature of Drupal.org and the Drupal community, blocking someone from Drupal.org effectively blocks them from Drupal. Sure, they can download modules and stuff, but they can't report bugs, they can't ask for help in the forums, and so on. I think we need to be tolerant, to a fault, because we effectively lop people off at the knees in terms of being able to build sites with Drupal when we ban them from drupal.org.

Further, while I can understand that the defining line here was the distinctly personal nature of Daniel's attacks (e.g. "Its [sic] looks like no one on the team has ever built a Web site, has any design experience or knows anything about content management"), but the message it sends is that we don't allow criticism in our community. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course... criticism is highly encouraged as long as it's constructive and in the appropriate places... but this only feeds into the misconception that we're some kind of cliquey cabal, and if you're not an "insider", then GTFO. This is a well-established recipe for breeding more trolls.

I do definitely agree though that the personal attacks need to stop. Now. So he should be warned accordingly, and sternly told that if attacks continue, there will be consequences, one of which is a "time out" ban. I still hold some kind of vain hope that we can reach out to this person and turn their frustration into highly-motivated contributions, but I also believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy. ;)

I agree with webchick. While I agree that his comments were out of line, it isn't clear from this issue that someone specifically said to him that he would be blocked if he continued. I think that needs to happen before a block, even a temporary one. People who work with Drupal professionally are very dependent on drupal.org. To suddenly cut them off with no warning isn't fair. If he's warned and then continues, then it's his own fault.

Michelle

I felt that the comments by the redesign team members on the last front page post constituted enough of a warning to Daniel.

I don't agree. No where on that page is anyone saying that he will be banned for continuing. In fact:

Also, in terms of tone. You obviously have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want to say it, and even however you want to say it. No one is threatening anyone with banning here. But realize that when you express yourself like this you are being incredibly damaging to the community.

From webchick in that thread, emphasis mine.

Michelle

I'm all for process, and all for seeing people come around, but at a certain point, enough is enough.

I would say that the repeated attacks this person has thrown pass the "obvious" test - they are clearly, repeatedly, unapologetically out of line, to the point where they are obviously not acceptable, and obviously grounds for having your account suspended.

As I understand it, this ban is a temporary thing to allow this person to figure out how he wants to interact within the community.

That seems like a sane and rational response to some fairly irrational provocation.

+1 for keeping the ban in place until the user indicates they can participate constructively within the community.

RE:

People who work with Drupal professionally are very dependent on drupal.org

Being blocked doesn't shut you off from the code. It's also worth noting that this situation arose from the user's inappropriate actions.

Agreeing with webchick and michelle.

This is really not about this one person or these awful posts, it's about how our community responds when criticized, and we must remain very open about that.

Let's use the process that Amazon outlined very, very well (See #6) and let's use it consistently. And let's have clear email warnings with specific consequences (temporary ban).

Amazon, my recommendation is this: please unblock this person and send an email warning to him stating explicit consequences (temporary ban) in the case of another personal attack.

Thanks,
-Randy

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't just spammers who get blocked without a warning?
Why is then the user still blocked, even if there are Drupal.org site maintainers/administrators who seem to be contrary to block him without to give him a warning?

It sounded like the consensus was that the user Daniel J Wilcox should receive an extreme warning, but should not be blocked. Yet I notice he is still blocked two weeks later. What is the status of this?

For the record, I think the individual is dead wrong about the re-design in many respects. I also found his late-to-the-party criticisms less than helpful. But I get concerned when people get "banished from the island" especially when it appears to be caused by their lack of social grace. I'm awkward and opinionated -- I might be next.