On Nov 27, 2007 2:46 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Wait a minute; what "kangaroo court"? Durova is an individual admin, and Matthew and Guy have both said clearly and unequivocally that she didn't ask *any* list for permission to block, or, I believe, even mention that she was planning to do so.
Read the email. It's obvious she's accusing !! of blockable offenses-- being a WR Sockpuppet.
To you, perhaps.
[personall attack snipped] The email, IIRC from when it was posted, specifically indicated that !! was trolling, that !! waded into some drama because he couldn't control himself, and so on.
So? Unless you assume that the purpose of the cyberstalking list is to block users, then there's no reason to assume that those who actually read the e-mail (and it's unclear how many people did so) would imagine that Durova was planning to do so. Your argument is circular, and relies on both bad faith and hindsight.
On a list of "people who already believe in bigfoot"-- seems to fly afoul of CANVASSing.
Are you suggesting that, like bigfoot, the claims that Wikipedians have been harassed by WR members are mythical?
Jay, read the thread, and the workshop on RfAr. 'Believing in Bigfoot' here and there doesn't mean 'believing in harassment', it means 'believing that a dozen banned users will be successful in subverting the entire project because of their brilliance and the fact that most editors do not believe in constant vigilance.'
Who believes that?
Then, about five individuals engaged in "in depth" discussion with her, and "enthusiastically endorsed" the block. This isn't a fairy tale-- this is Durova's own words.
And Guy and Matthew have both stated that Durova did not propose on either list that anyone be blocked, so, if there was any "enthusiastic endorsing" of a block, it couldn't have been there. Relata Refero has suggested that there may be some third, truly secret off-Wikia mailing list that is the one co-ordinating blocks. If such a thing exists, which I highly doubt, do you imagine that Wikipedia can do anything about it?
I didn't suggest it. I pointed out that if Durova says she got enthusiastic support following her circulation of the evidence, and Matthew and Guy say there was no support for a block, or even a proposal on Wikia, the only way to reconcile those statements is to assume some other form of contact.
Of course that isn't the only way to reconcile those statements. I can think of at least four other ways of reconciling them.
And the only thing Wikipedia can do about it is to say that it is a bad thing to not run your ideas by genuine examination, from people who have different perspectives from you. I am yet to see anyone on this thread arguing for that.
Why would you imagine people on the list *didn't* have different perspectives than Durova? You don't even know who is on it.
Do the people who endorsed her block need to have their use of tools monitored a little more closely by the community?? The answer we're getting right now is not "yes" or "no" but "That's none of Arbcom's business "
Actually, the answer you're getting right now is "she didn't even propose a block, so no-one could have endorsed it". For some reason, though, you don't seem to be hearing that.
Jay, nobody objected to her conclusions in the email she sent. That is worrying enough.
Can I assume, then, that you take responsibility for and support all content on wikien-l that you don't explicitly object to?
It's just not acceptable. It's a RECIPE for schism, paranoia and drama.
I think a much stronger case can be made that your own actions and posts here are the recipe for that.
Make it, then. You will fail: because if Alec didn't bring it up, someone else would have. This isn't about individuals, its about processes.
Um, why then are people like Alec insisting that they must known the names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking? And what "processes" are you talking about?