When I was on Wikipedia as an admin, someone modified their signature to point to a user who didn't exist. I was pretty pissed off about this, and so I went to the admins noticeboard I'd setup not really that long ago to ask someone to resolve the issue.
This is where I did something particularly dumb. I created the account to the non-existent user and posted a few comments on it - then quickly switched back to my Ta bu Shi da Yu account to say what I'd done and explain the impact it was likely to have.
It was a bad, bad judgement call. I got such a massive lynching that I seriously regretted what I'd done - but there was no way of undoing it. Eventually, I started getting depressed - I mean, my entire reputation was in tatters. None of the work I'd done - not the hours and hours of fighting trolls, extensive article writing, innovative strategies for dealing with referencing or organizing the admins via the board, nor the work on featured article candidates, peer review, articles for deletion, vandalism fighting, meeting up with Sydney people interested in Wikipedia, made any difference at all.
I left the project and asked to be desysopped. About a year or so later, I created an account Tbsdy lives and tried again. I managed to get my admin status re established (I readily admitted it was a bad judgement call), but still I was told I'd left "under a cloud", by none other than Brad Fitzpatrick - their legal counsel.
What's the moral of this? Online communities suck. If you make even one minor error in judgment, be prepared to be lynched. If you get depressed, just exit at this point and don't look back. It's not worth it. It doesn't matter how much time you put into a project - you're going to get judged, and you'll never make your way back.
If you don't think it can't happen, then ask Ben Noordrius how he felt when Bryan Cantrell called him an arsehole and said he should have been fired because he reverted a personal pronoun. That did the Node.js community a lot of good now, didn't it?
I just want to say, I remember the account name "Ta bu shi da yu" from when I was active on Wikipedia (it's been about 10 years) and you seemed cool. I missed whatever drama this was, but my only association with that name is that it was someone who was active on Wikipedia and doing useful things.
Regarding Bryan Cantrill, never forget this post (a one-line reply at the bottom):
Which I link not to shame him for what he wrote as a recent college grad 20 years ago, but to say that everyone does dumb, borderline offensive things sometimes, and what matters is that you are not obstinate in your dumbness.
Maybe Bryan would have fired the person he was then; that's fine. We need both effective, meaningful punishment, and also effective rehabilitation. It should be possible to go from Bryan Cantrill in Sun to Bryan Cantrill in Joyent. It should be possible to go from Ben Noordhuis in Node to Ben Noordhuis in io, or Justine Sacco in IAC to Justine Sacco wherever she is now, or Sam Biddle to chastened empathetic Sam Biddle, or whatever.
He acknowledges that in the replies, but this particular "idiocy" is not one of tone, behavior, or offense. It is about bad technical policy in the pursuit of ego, which is something that Linus has done several times since.
(And he's a brilliant enough kernel hacker that he can work around his own bad policy and still come up with a system that works well, but that doesn't mean it's not bad technical policy. I feel bad begrudging him for making a worse product when it's so good due exactly to his skill, but still, the product could have been better if he avoided making these sorts of decisions.)
Anyway, I do kind of wish Bryan would issue a clearer apology for what he said 20 years ago. But I also kind of wish we lived in a world where he didn't have to, and it's obvious he's grown up in the last 20 years.
It's funny you should mention that, as that episode from nearly 20 years ago (!!) has come up much more in the last year than it did in the two decades prior. Of course, the reason is not an accident; it's a direct result of those who
vehemently disagree with my handling of the Noordhuis pronoun incident.
Anyway, your request is entirely fair, and let me be clear that I (obviously?) regret the have-you-ever-kissed-a-girl response (which was actually an obscure Saturday Night Live reference). I was young, and it was stupid -- and I regretted it shortly thereafter, for whatever it's worth. I have never actually met David in person, but if I did, the first thing I would do would be to look him in the eye and apologize.
That said, I do think that this is contrast to the Noordhuis incident. I know that this position is not popular here (and that I will be downvoted into oblivion), and that it's likely foolish to revisit this, but just to make clear my position: I am understanding (very understanding, given my own history) of gaffes made on the internet. The Noordhuis issue, however, was not a gaffe: it's not that he rejected the pull request (that's arguably a gaffe), it's that when he was overruled by Isaac some hours later, he unilaterally reverted Isaac's commit. (And, it must be said, sent a very nasty private note to make clear that this was no accident.) This transcended gaffe, and it became an issue of principle -- one that I feel strongly about. So what I wrote at the time was entirely honest, and it is something that I absolutely stand by -- more than ever, actually.
The inarguably contrast is this: I regretted the have-you-ever-kissed-a-girl response; I do not and will not regret my handling of the Noordhuis incident -- and any company that would not employ me over this is a company that I would not want to work for.
Incidentally, I don't think you should have to apologize for what you said 20 years ago, because it was 20 years ago and that's ridiculous. But I do think you were an ass for escalating the Noordhuis incident the way you did, not because of your opinion on pronouns. And I voted you up because downvoting because of petty disagreement _is_ getting ridiculous around here.
Haha, hi, thanks for showing up on the thread. Not that I have any real justification in having opinions on something you said to someone else while I was in third grade (... although I think I was using Solaris then), but as a random member of the open-source community, I do appreciate you saying this clearly. :)
I did see it brought up first by some obvious single-purpose-troll account on Twitter in the midst of the pronoun incident. And just to make sure I'm being totally clear, I'm not bringing it up because I want to dog you with it, but because I think it's a great example of how everyone's fallible, even the people that I most look up to for how they push a community to be better. The standard isn't perfection and it's not about individuals per se; it's about improvement, as a community. We ought to criticize so we can build a better community, not so that we can knock each other down at the first mistake.
I was actually glad you brought it up. When I saw the New York Times story, I naturally thought back to my own episode(s) -- and it's been on my mind anyway because it came up on HN as recently as yesterday.[1]
Part of the peril of social media is that everyone becomes a public figure -- whether they want to be one or not. Those who are more traditional public figures (e.g., politicians, actors, athletes, business leaders) often have the personality attributes that make it easier to deal with scathing public criticism (though I don't think anyone particularly likes being excoriated) -- but most normal people actually don't. As a culture, I hope that we will be both more tolerant of mistakes made on social media -- but also more aware that (at some level) we all need to act as public figures when in public. Certainly, it's a thorny, complicated issue -- and one that is decidedly (if not canonically) modern.
Its fruitful to reflect on such past behavior both professional and personal. I have my share of regrets as well. None of us are without fault, just some of us have our mistakes more amplified than others. It important to learn from such things.
In interest of personal edification (since you seem to be open to feedback) the one criticism I have about the Noordhuis incident is that in my opinion if you felt as strongly as you did about publicly chastising Noordhuis it should have been done from your personal blog and not from the Joyent blog. I feel this was slight abuse of power and influence of the Joyent brand, specifically because you mention the intent on terminating his employment if it was within your power. I don't think that belongs there as permanent public record. That said, I think your desire was to make it clear to the community that gender biases were not going to be tolerated and to me that intent (for the most part) came through.
I do think its plausible that Noordhuis wasn't quite represented properly and that he had strong opinions about process and how commits are merged but those strong opinions were interpreted as an intent to have gender bias. But I don't have enough information to know for sure, that's just how it looks to me.
In the end regret is an entirely personal thing and we all get to decide what kind of person we are going to be. I would also like to suggest that regret isn't black and white there are always ways we can conduct or communicate more effectively and perhaps this could be a take away for you. Could there have been a way to achieve your goals equally/more effectively with less of a direct expense to Ben??
As someone who has worked directly under (and along side) you I have a deep respect for the way you conduct yourself professionally. I see you as someone with integrity, which is probably why you feel comfortable bringing up incidences you have been criticized for (this something far too rare). I offer my perspective as a friend so take it for what its worth to you.
I appreciate (as always) your thoughtful candor. And I (certainly) appreciate your kind words with respect to my personal integrity; the sentiment is very much mutual!
In this case, we may have to agree to disagree: I felt (and feel) that a message from Joyent -- not a message from me -- was called for: members of the node.js community were calling Joyent to task for Ben's behavior, and I (we) felt that it was Joyent that needed to respond. That said, I appreciate your willingness to speak your mind and to earnestly engage on this issue!
So here's the thing I've always been a little fuzzy on. bnoodhuis' reversion said (to isaacs) "All patches have to be signed off by either me or Bert."
The reaction would seem to indicate that this is like telling Linus Torvalds he needs approval to land patches in Linux. Was there anything codified anywhere explaining that this was the case? Did that rule only apply for code and not docs changes? Was the sign-off rule not actually written down anywhere?
Whenever the Noordhuis incident comes up, I'm always quick to point out that `git push -f master`ing a non-fast-forward commit without prior warning is already halfway to a firing offense.
EDIT: No, wait, it was a revert commit, this just raises further questions.
"On the one hand, it seems ridiculous (absurd, perhaps) to fire someone over a pronoun -- but to characterize it that way would be a gross oversimplification: it's not the use of the gendered pronoun that's at issue (that's just sloppy), but rather the insistence that pronouns should in fact be gendered."
The biggest issue is the way that you handled this. You did this appallingly. You still seem to be puzzled why people still bring this up.
In a community project, people often do things you aren't going to like. Ben rejected a push, and he steadfastly maintains that he did this for good reasons:
Now instead of communicating with Ben, giving him the benefit of the doubt as a non-native speaker of English and calling him out publicly in the way you did was an absolute classic case of what you do NOT do.
In a community run project, the dynamics are different to being in a corporation. The first rule is: you are dealing with a lot of people, from a lot of different backgrounds. There is lots of room for misunderstanding. The absolute golden rule around dealing with a popular project is to try to wrangle this appropriately and with as little heat as possible.
So let's review what you did:
1. You posted one of the most inflammatory, aggressive posts I've seen in a very long time. You took no time to talk to Ben about his position and to talk him around to making an apology and reversing his decision.
2. You compete with StrongLoop. You basically told your competitor that they should fire one of their best developers to the project. Your company may have been a main initiator of Node.js and you see it as largely the steward for the project, but your own employee reversed the decision of a major contributor.
And this is where you really stuffed up. For some time there had been rumblings about how Joyent was biased about the way they accepted commits and directed the project - rightly or wrongly. There was a perception of bias towards Joyent's interests. That's not necessarily a correct viewpoint. But you started a chain of events you now can't control.
Joyent has finally setup a Foundation, but has now got a fork competing with the core project. StrongLoop is one of the groups backing io.js. A large number of your core developers are publicly backing io.js.
3. Community leaders, like yourself, aren't meant to send abusive messages over blogs. You called him an arsehole. You called for his sacking.
Let's underscore how tone-deaf you have been, and completely clueless over how to run an open source project:
"While we would fire Ben over this, node.js is an open source project and one doesn't necessarily have the same levers. Indeed, one of the challenges of an open source project that depends on volunteer effort is dealing with assholes"
You don't realise how much damage you did. I agree with gender neutral language in technical writing. Many others do as well. If you had dealt with this differently and not decided to become a self-aggrandizing pundit, then you would have probably shown that Joyent can deal with controversial matters maturely and civilly, play nicely with others, resolve conflict, and you'd have the high moral ground.
Now you just look like a bully, and I'd say you were the catalyst for the io.js fork. You also opened yourself up to your own past, which you also regret.
As I say - you've basically given us all a text-book case study into how not to manage an open source project.
I don't care how much anyone dislikes Cantrill, but standing up for Ben about this is a mark of shame.
> You took no time to talk to Ben about his position and to talk him around to making an apology and reversing his decision.
Whereas just above:
> it's that when he was overruled by Isaac some hours later, he unilaterally reverted Isaac's commit. (And, it must be said, sent a very nasty private note to make clear that this was no accident.)
I don't know why you thought you were privy to all the communication that went on in this situation, but that sentence ought to indicate to you that you are not, in fact, omniscient.
The fact that Ben remains absolutely unrepentant on this issue, and sees "I was following the project's rules to the letter on an issue which I myself dismissed as trivial" as a valid excuse should be to his lasting shame, and you should be ashamed of perpetuating it.
You're right - I didn't see the private correspondence - Bryan certainly never mentioned it before now.
I certainly don't feel ashamed about calling out the bullying behaviour of Joyent. It's never ok to call someone an arsehole on a company blog about a competitor's employee, let alone call on his sacking. And who knows what the content of that nasty note was - perhaps he called Bryan an arsehole, perhaps he said that he thought that the change was rubbish, maybe he was passed off that the change wasn't discussed, maybe he thought that it was gasp a beat up, or maybe he swore at Cantrell for being a jerk?
Whatever it was, it's irrelevant. It's not the approach an open source leader should take, it certainly didn't concubine anyone about gender neutral language, it was hostile, ungracious, gave Ben Noordius no way of graciously apologising (had he wanted to) and it led to unnecessary schisms in the project.
All up, Bryan looks like a bully, Joyent look pompous and overbearing, the reasonable debate about gender equality is obscured by the abusive language and tone of the post, Ben Noordius appears to have been wronged, and a nuanced debate about gender neutral language is rather appallingly sidetracked by a man who uses dominant and crude language to ram his pint across - most likely due to political and personal reasons.
I can see an organization having an internal gendered pronoun elimination policy --who cares. But I think one should allow anyone writing any contribution to use whatever pronoun gender they prefer. Encourage women to use feminine grammatical gender and men to use either grammatical gender pronoun.
Leave it up to the writer to decide.
For what it's worth, I prefer the neutral 'they' but I also don't get caught up in grammatical genders. Imagine if English had retained grammatical genders for regular nouns --as german and spanish do. What, so we rewrite the language and change grammatical gender because it gets conflated with biological gender?
Also, when I read text and it has the grammatical gender opposite mine, I don't feel disenfranchised by the text. It's not something I keep conscious of. I'm not pronoun hunting, and I think few people do that. Reading would become incomprehensibly distracting.
It's the same as when you see the pronoun 'you' Do you automatically believe it refers to you personally? I know I don't. Same with he, she, they, they're all a third person abstraction.
I see what you're saying and agree that's a rational reason for bringing up past events. But hear me out. My issue was that based on these three events it seems like he continues to like to raise his relative position by slamming other people. The means have changed, where before it was social status ("have you ever even kissed a girl?") to social justice "I would have fired BEN NOORDHUIS if he worked for me and did these despicable things").
I have noticed that a number of the most vocal social justice advocates have similar sort of behavior in their past. There is nothing wrong with advocating for social justice, but to me it's clear that as it has become a socially acceptable way to punish, it has attracted people in whom the desire to socially punish others is strong. Callout culture gives these people their "fix".
Not really understanding how the wikipedia community operates, why were you irritated by the signature and how was writing the comments such an irreconcilable wrong? Were they inappropriate comments?
The comments weren't awful. It was really a bad judgement call because it violated the principle "don't be disruptive to make a point", which I really didn't consider very clearly before doing it.
The reason I was annoyed about it was because signatures are the way you see who is saying something in a conversation thread. Back then you'd click on the person's username and get easy access to their pages, talk page, block links, contributions, etc. it also made it really hard to see what they had contributed. I was also concerned that someone would go what I in essence did - which was a really dumb move on my part, like I say.
You'll have to forgive me, because even after you explained it, I still don't understand.
If someone has a link in their signature pointing to an unassigned user name, then grabbing that username could also be interpreted at plugging a security hole as a stop gap measure while the problem is being discussed.
I don't see how it's outrageous. I don't see how you overstepped your bounds.
I think the context is important (it's hard to dig up the edit history for so long ago). I actually was in the wrong about the way I went about things - it was being debated and I really did try to prove a point (though it never occurred to me that I was being disruptive).
The editor in question quite possibly had good intentions, or didn't see anything wrong with what they did. Whilst I was not a malicious actor, there was debate about the situation and I think people objected more to the way I went about proving the point I was making (which I maintain was valid). That's a fair cop, and I accept my action was rash.
Are 'admins' on wikipedia more like 'moderators' than actual admins? The word admin to me makes me think of someone who runs something and makes the rules, not always being held to them themselves.
It's been a long time since I participated. But admins, at the time, weren't meant to be anything more that editors with some special tools. Those tools require good judgement, unfortunately good judgement is not something any of exhibit 100% of the time, especially if you need to show it every day.
Meta-Wikipedia is where the toxic parts are. Admins are an easy target and sometimes people get swept up in bashing. Read ANI today and you can see similar things occasionally.
You are not your mistakes, and there is a natural human margin of error. Mistakes make us human and it's what every single one of us has in common.
You seem to be a super bright guy who experienced a momentary lapse in judgement fuelled by emotion. We all do this, it's just not always public.
Also- I don't know how old you were at the time this story occurred but according to neuroscience, the frontal lobe doesn't develop until we are 25-27 years old (males develop later than females) and this is exactly the type of mistake the frontal lobe prevents us from making.
I hope you've recovered from this incident and have learned to not take these mistakes too personally...
I've been pretty open in that situations probably get exacerbated for me because I have a mental illness - anxiety, depression and adult ADD (I refuse to call it ADHD, I'm not hyperactive!). I manage these better now, but it still leaks into my life. I'm extremely lucky I have a supportive wife and two small children who keep my mind off things and let me focus on what's important :-)
>Adults with ADHD are often perceived by others as chaotic and disorganized, with a tendency to need high stimulation to be less distracted and function effectively. Additionally, many adults suffer from associated or "co-morbid" psychiatric conditions such as depression or anxiety.[13]
>Symptoms of ADHD can vary widely between individuals and throughout the lifetime of an individual. As the neurobiology of ADHD is becoming increasingly understood, it is becoming evident that difficulties exhibited by individuals with ADHD are due to problems with the parts of the brain responsible for executive functions (see below: Pathophysiology). These result in problems with sustaining attention, planning, organizing, prioritizing, and impulsive thinking/decision making.
Hope I'm being useful -- a close family member was in the same boat. I was able to help, because it was me who randomly saw someone talking about this on an HN comment and I dived further into the world of ADHD and found out that it may not be 'classical' depression, but depression caused by something else. Since then, there's been complete emotional stability, rational decision making and depression is controlled completely.
Lastly, Chris... what you did I think was not a bad judgement call at all. In my mind you were making something right, and fixing a wrong because that was the only tool available to you. Debating something just takes forever and some things need to be fixed there and then. What happened to you, is simply disgusting. I am sorry for that, and I hope you can look back on it as a good memory and not a bad memory (which is tough).
I ran a massive community as the real admin, but the same sort of thing happened to me as well. Been years since I left but it's still sore to think about.
This is where I did something particularly dumb. I created the account to the non-existent user and posted a few comments on it - then quickly switched back to my Ta bu Shi da Yu account to say what I'd done and explain the impact it was likely to have.
It was a bad, bad judgement call. I got such a massive lynching that I seriously regretted what I'd done - but there was no way of undoing it. Eventually, I started getting depressed - I mean, my entire reputation was in tatters. None of the work I'd done - not the hours and hours of fighting trolls, extensive article writing, innovative strategies for dealing with referencing or organizing the admins via the board, nor the work on featured article candidates, peer review, articles for deletion, vandalism fighting, meeting up with Sydney people interested in Wikipedia, made any difference at all.
I left the project and asked to be desysopped. About a year or so later, I created an account Tbsdy lives and tried again. I managed to get my admin status re established (I readily admitted it was a bad judgement call), but still I was told I'd left "under a cloud", by none other than Brad Fitzpatrick - their legal counsel.
What's the moral of this? Online communities suck. If you make even one minor error in judgment, be prepared to be lynched. If you get depressed, just exit at this point and don't look back. It's not worth it. It doesn't matter how much time you put into a project - you're going to get judged, and you'll never make your way back.
If you don't think it can't happen, then ask Ben Noordrius how he felt when Bryan Cantrell called him an arsehole and said he should have been fired because he reverted a personal pronoun. That did the Node.js community a lot of good now, didn't it?