On Nov 29, 2007 4:17 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 23:18 -0600, SlimVirgin wrote:
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were
with, and I see no
point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her
adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to
pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she
discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are,
because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback
-- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the
same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five
editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone,
misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There
is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
The point that some in this thread wanting to make, is that there's no
way for the community to know whether its the case Durova heard Y when X
was said, or whether she heard Y because that was what was said by the
people she discussed it with, unless what was discussed is known.
And if its the latter case, the community would want to know, as argued
by the editors wanting to know more, who those 5 were so that it can pay
a closer attention to their judgements.
There is no point in conducting a witchhunt if its the former case, but
the argument is that we cannot see (and hence decide) if it's actually
the latter case.
Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but
unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several
individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used
to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other
wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means).
People who are actually on the cyberstalking list have stated quite
clearly that Durova did not even propose blocking !! there, yet
despite this the witchhunt continues, with demands that everyone on
the list be named, or five specific individuals be named, that all
e-mails on the list be made public, that the e-mails supporting this
block be made public (despite the clear statements that the block
wasn't even discussed), and who knows what else. And since I'm a
proponent of being specific, Alec Conroy has been front and center in
the hysteria, making wild claims - for example
"Your summary of the lists as little more than a support group does
not jibe with the known facts. The lists was used to collaborate and
coordinate self-described "sleuthing". Proposed bans were discussed,
acted upon, and defended. Your denial of this suggests that no
significant change has taken place in the use of the list since its
existence was revealed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arb…
And this after it has been stated unequivocally that no such thing
happened. Alec has also been front and center in making other
outrageous claims and demands; for example, he seems to believe that
if a Wikipedia administrator mentions anything about Wikipedia in a
private e-mail, then it is his right to see it (see diff provided
above). Others have contributed to this nonsense, by continuing to
assert, in the face of clear statements to the contrary, that the
cyberstalking list co-ordinated !!'s block; Relata Refero talks of a
"systemic issue" and various imaginary list "processes" that led to
the blocking, and Ray Saintonge insists we are actually trying to
avoid discussing the "systemic issues" of a system that doesn't
actually exist. And geni, of course, comes in with the usual cryptic
non-sequiturs; apparently this is a scandal of Enron-like proportions,
and if someone fails to read and respond to every one of the hundreds
of e-mails they receive daily then it is a moral failing in some
unnamed "moral system" of unnamed religious groups who believe in
collective punishment and follow Asimov's first law of robotics.
The facts of the situation are that on November 3 Durova sent a
"lesson in spotting returning editors" to the cyberstalking list,
where, according to all reports, it received little attention and even
less response. *Fifteen days later* Durova blocked !!, and 72 minutes
after that unblocked !!. Since then there has been an ever increasing
tide of hysteria surrounding this 72 minute block, with multiple AN,
wikien-l, and other threads, an RFC, posting of private e-mails,
OFFICE removals of same, leaking of membership lists, and now an
ArbCom case which appears to be rapidly reaching a conclusion. Durova
has already voluntarily given up her adminship status, something I do
not believe the ArbCom would have removed from her. While some may
still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be
subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House
Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.