On Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
Avi wrote:
What bothers me about the quote below is that it
completely ignores the
fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles
watchlisted;
not to mention the fact that we all have editors
who when we see there
names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at
the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely,
IMO,
to ascribe "blocks" to editor
watchlists than private lists, although
that
could just be naivte.
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem
is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form),
that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or
mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being
condoned by some part of he community.
I disagree.
I think that it would be better to move towards normal operations where any
behind-the-scenes discussions are irrelevant to what is done on-wiki.
There was nothing wrong with Durova making a block. There was nothing wrong
with a block being based on a mistaken interpretation of some evidence (that
happens to any admin doing any type of abuse fighting for long enough).
There wasn't anything wrong with the discussion (apparently one sided and as
it was) on the private list that preceded it.
There was a perception that there'd been more behind-the-scenes evidence and
discussion, and upset people when both of those turned out to be untrue and
that there'd been a venue used that most people were unaware of.
If one puts all the evidence cards on the table (or offers to do so if
there's controversy) when blocking or taking other administrative action,
there's not much anyone can complain about regarding private discussions or
other work that may have preceded the action offline. Block is for X Y Z,
and it doesn't matter if admins A B and C agreed with blocking admin Q on
mailing list M and F and G agreed with Q in separate private emails.
One simply points to X Y and Z and those can stand or fall on their merits.
There are exceptions, for checkuser evidence and other privacy related and
Office related info. Most of which can be results-summarized (H and J used
same IP addresses, L threatened to sue via email to Office...) But other
than that, put cards on table.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com