That's easy to blame after the fact when no clear standards existed.
Durova-- I know this mailing list has gotten heated, but please believe me when I say it really isn't about blame. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, it's not. I think you were a great admin. To my knowledge, I only encountered you in on-wiki disputes twice, and in both cases, you were completely in the right. Even though we disagreed with on philosophical issues, you were always civil, and you were on the shortlist of candidates I was going to vote for you for arbcom. Assuming we get some clarity about what sort of secret list/secret evidence behavior is appropriate, I very possibly will find myself being an ardent supporter of yours come RFA time-- I know you probably think I'm being insincere when I say that, but stranger things have happened. Unflagging civility despite any circumstances makes a big dang impression on me.
It's not about blame-- it's about oversight. The community ruled very strongly that your judgment needed some oversight and some feedback, and even though it looks advesarial, hopefully we're providing that.
It just seems to me that anyone else who came to similar conclusions should be subject to the same oversight-- doesn't it?
Alec
On 11/27/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
There were in-depth deliberations about [[User:!!]] that led to his blocking. Since that block was in error, we want to be able to look at the conversations that led up to his blocking, so we can see who all was at fault, where the system broke down, and how we can fix it. This shouldn't be a controversial request, it should be a commonplace one. In every erroneous block, people go back over the discussions to see what went wrong. The only thing that's different in this case is that you guy took your deliberations off-wiki, and are not trying to prevent the community from reviewing what precisely went wrong. I realize that may feel like an invasion of privacy, since you guys thought the deliberations would be secret when you held them-- but sadly, that's your own fault for doing admin investigations in a secret venue.
That's easy to blame after the fact when no clear standards existed. Even though Alkivar overturned my block on Burntsauce in April, no one raised a protest that I asked for off-wiki evidence review then. Most of the community just didn't pay attention to this for a long time. In the THF-David Shankbone case I asked the Committee to make a ruling on fair play practices regarding use of onsite name disclosures, and nobody really picked up on why I thought that was important. Since I couldn't even spark their interest on one of the clearest examples of the subject and it had played into more than one case they handled, it seemed well-nigh impossible for me to start a community dialog.
Nobody gets angry with the pitcher as long as he keeps throwing strikes. And, per the developing Privatemusings decision, you really ought to be going easier on people who were acting in good conscience in an area where policy was silent. It's noble of you to try to assure us that, if we could see the evidence, we would see that you are the only one at fault here. But surely you must understand, given the recent history, why we aren't going to be willing to take your word for what the evidence will and will not show. Alec
I've been thinking of posting my evidence from the Alkivar case. Can't release everything because it includes private e-mails, but there's a trusted user version I've shared. Do you think it would be a good idea for me to put that in user space alongside my Joan of Arc vandal report?
-Durova _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l