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.
Jay, if it doesn't say that to you, your judgment is frankly as questionable
as Durova's. 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.
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.'
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. 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.
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. She herself has said that her block met with agreement, so
someone endorsed it. They do not bear the responsibility for it, but their
judgment is questionable too.
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.
RR