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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen
> > > <bryan.derksen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l