On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 AM, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
The
problem came when the private discussion was used to support direct
public actions while still being kept strictly private. If someone says
"I have evidence this is a sock puppet of a disruptive user," I want to
know what that evidence is before anything remotely like a ban is
considered. If they say "a bunch of other editors support me on this," I
want to know who they are or it's just meaningless noise.
I understand you are curious; but since it apparently has nothing to
do with wikia hosted lists, why are you bringing it up on wikien-l?
Because the block happened on Wikipedia. That's the "public action" that
changed everything.
Blocks happen on Wikipedia all the time. I believe they're usually
discussed on AN/I, aren't they?
As far as
I'm aware Durova's email containing the evidence that was used
as the basis for blocking !! is still thoroughly oversighted and
expunged from Wikipedia. It's silly that I actually had to go to
Wikitruth to find a copy of it.
Apparently Wikipedia's lawyer thinks that copyright law trumps your curiosity.
First I've heard that there's been any sort of official statement from
Wikipedia's lawyer. Is it posted publicly anywhere? I hope you'll
understand my skepticism under the circumstances.
Yes, of course, you've consistently assumed bad faith up until now,
why break a perfect record?
Durova is perfectly capable of posting the email to
Wikipedia herself,
everything else aside.
Why on earth should she? It's evidence in an ArbCom case, the ArbCom
has seen it. What business is it of yours?