On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> It is not an "anti-wiki" idea, any more
than OTRS or IRC are
> anti-wiki ideas. Sometimes you need to allow people to let off steam
> or release hurt or explore a thought in some kind of privacy.
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.
And to be absolutely clear here, if I were to block someone on the
basis of information I could not easily share it would only be
*after* running it by the arbitrators. I already emailed details of
at least one block to arbcom-l. That still does not make it
anyone's call but my own.
We should not neglect here the obvious interpretation: that Durova
simply screwed up. Some of us have been somewhat taken aback, and
may have learned something from it. But ultimately it was Durova's
call and she has taken a real beating for it. The same has happened
with blocks resulting from misjudgment of conversations on IRC, I
seem to recall. I used to be very anti-IRC until I tried it.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion
could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment.
If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there
would be no effective difference.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG