The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different, but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and thus contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of the trouble because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o coordinated admins?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l