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

[Wily D]

On 11/27/07, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
> Quoting Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
> >> <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was
> >> >basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing
> >> >lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret
> >> >evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > 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'?
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Alec
>
> If I may, I know that this topic has caused a lot of drama. Alec's
> concerns are
> to some extent valid. In this particular case I disagree strongly with them in
> so far as off-wiki communication is a standard thing and is often necessary
> when dealing with determined disruption. However, his position should not by
> any means be dismissed as trolling. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make it
> trolling.
>
> Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the time.
> There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was
> overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter. We have an
> encyclopedia to edit. Can we go back to that now? Please?

One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to
write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons,
and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as
a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot.  Secret evidence
on secret mailing lists leading to blocks where the reasoning won't be
discussed?  Am I popular enough that if I got the block instead of !!
that I'd get the necessary outrage to get me unblocked?  I have my
doubts ... and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Cheers
WilyD