[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:19:11 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.

>Dude-- that's already been admitted to.   The list WAS secret--
>Durova's email admits that.  The list DID involve secret evidence
>against !!,  we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate
>their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself.
>I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.

No, what you are "revealing" is your own spin on it.  The list is
not secret, it is private.  The two are different.  It does not
exist as a covert "votes for banning", which did not stop Durova
from sending that email.  The list exists to discuss harassment and
its effects.  

>> This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for
>> the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage
>> harassment.

>If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their
>existence such a closely guarded  secret?

It wasn't.  It just wasn't advertised.  There was no reason to
advertise it.  We already knew who the victims of harassment on
Wikipedia were, so there was no need to actively solicit others.

>If it was totally above board, why wasn't the ENTIRE arbcom included
>in the list--  why only send "secret evidence" to some arbiters,
>rather than others, if not to 'stack the deck'?

Paranoid fantasy.  People were invited to join who have expressed an
interest in harassment.  Some of these are arbitrators.  This is not
ex-officio, it's an informal list, so inviting the entire
arbitration committee would be unnecessary.  Not all arbitrators
want to wade through a few hundred more emails.

>If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go
>so badly?  Is the community's opinion just not valid?  Has an ARMY of
>ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as
>regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to
>magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her
>behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?

The RfC against Durova went badly because Durova fucked up badly.
And because there are some people who already hate Durova, some of
whom are the ones who were harassing her.

>> You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this
>> egregious trolling.  Way to go, Alec.

>Thanks Guy--  I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.

False.  I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing
to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by
someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is
trolling.

You could always try, you know, not doing it.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG