On Nov 27, 2007 2:46 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy
<alecmconroy(a)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?