Colluding is not my word. It's Bryan's. The purpose of my message was to point out that Bryan's suggestion that further discussion of the block took place off-wiki was not ruled out by Guy's statement that blocking !! was not explicitly proposed on-list, only the evidence that !! was a disruptive sockpuppet.
If you re-read the above discussions, you will note that nobody really expects any controls on off-wiki discussion, which would be unenforceable. There are concerns about the on-wiki ramifications of a specific subset of such communications. So I don't suppose either Bryan or I need to respond to the rest of your message.
RR
On Nov 27, 2007 10:20 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists? O.K., let's assume for the moment that this bizarrely bad-faith theory is true. What on earth does it have to do with Wikipedia any more? Wikipedians privately e-mail each other hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day. What do you propose to do about that?
On Nov 27, 2007 11:35 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
You are setting up a false contradiction. 'Collusion', in Bryan's words, might have existed off the public list, once the evidence has been
presented
to the entire set. Matthew specifically laid that possibility open, in
fact.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:43 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam"
results
in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why
they
did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session
that
leaked.
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I
ran
this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I
can't
tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in
a
furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority
to
okay
anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point
here
is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin
was
just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group
of
like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens
to
have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to
meekly
and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this
attitude
and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l