And an excellent analysis by User:WAS 4.250 on what all the fuss is about regarding the initial block, the private/secret list etc.
"People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
A year ago (27 December 2006) we were told on by Kelly Martin on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
It seems that people have forgotten (or perhaps even never known) why #wikipedia-en-admins was created. The purpose was to have a forum where Foundation people (Jimbo, Brad, Danny, et al) could discuss high-priority issues requiring urgent action with trusted admins in a non-public place. Why non-public? Because these issues generally involved matters which were the subject of press attention or of threats of litigation, or otherwise prone to creating difficulties for the Wikimedia Foundation if not dealt with quickly and, as much as possible, quietly. Unfortunately, the channel was quickly compromised (there have been several instances of logs being leaked to various unscrupulous parties who have used them to try to create embarrassment or otherwise complicate the Foundation's efforts to avoid being embroiled in negative publicity or litigation), and as a result, such situations are now managed through other, even more secret, forums.
We could shut down the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, but that wouldn't get rid of the nonpublic backchannels. It would just change their names and disperse the participants somewhat. At least #wikipedia-en-admins is an obvious channel name; it is certainly more informative than one of its progenitors, #fluffykittens.
Major administrative decisions have been made, at times, in these backchannels. Some of them have been quite momentous. In most of those cases, the decisions that have been made have been decisions that could not possibly have been discussed, let alone made, on the public wiki, but nonetheless have had to be made. This is a situation where the exigencies of real life, a universe which is replete with dastardly beasts such as reporters, pundits, and attorneys, force us to dispense with a full and open public discussion because doing so is the only way to avoid a vicious nasty lawsuit that would at best cripple and at worst utterly destroy Wikipedia. You don't have to like this. I'm not really all that happy about it either. But it's the way things are, and it's not something that's going to go away any time soon.
So, anyway, that's the "vital information" that gets passed through IRC backchannels like #wikipedia-en-admins, and why it cannot be passed through the public noticeboards. If you're not an admin doing crisis management for the Foundation, then you probably don't need to be there. But it would rather nice of those of you who are not doing crisis management for the Foundation to at least afford the assumption of good faith to those who are. And keep in mind that there's always the chance that if you do see an admin do something inexplicable, it might be a crisis management action, and that perhaps a polite private inquiry should be your first line of action, instead of an incendiary post to one of the noticeboards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The Durova incident email we read, the description of its having been reviwed and approved, the agreement by many admins in the first hour that the block should not be overturned except by arbcom and that the evidence was such that it could not be given to the community for evaluation, and the frantic efforts to delete evidences needed by the community to evaluate the situation; all led people to doubt what we have been told about what goes on behind closed doors around here. It led to a crisis of confidence, a doubting that we were being told the truth, a doubting in the judgement of the people in charge of what goes on behind closed doors. Efforts to say take my word for it and to delete evidence strengthened the appearance that the words were different than the facts. You must understand that when someone questions whether you are lying saying "I am not lying" does not help. Evidence is needed. That is what is going on. WAS 4.250 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)"
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:34:46 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
"People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
I dispute this. It is not clear to me that there is anyone exhibiting this "crisis" who was not already thoroughly convinced that any admin with even a tangential connection to SlimVirgin is tainted by evil.
Naturally this is just my personal view.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:34:46 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
"People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
I dispute this. It is not clear to me that there is anyone exhibiting this "crisis" who was not already thoroughly convinced that any admin with even a tangential connection to SlimVirgin is tainted by evil.
Naturally this is just my personal view.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, I'm afraid you're missing the point. This was a *community *issue that drew the attention and interest of editors from all kinds of areas. It was about big picture things, not about individual editors.
And I think it is disingenuous to bring up SlimVirgin's name here. Most people have the sense to remember that *somebody* always has to nominally be in charge of a list, and there is no doubt that Slim has good reason to have an interest in cyberstalking. The community as a whole has assumed good faith about Slim with respect to this issue, which I fully support.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:00:14 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Guy, I'm afraid you're missing the point. This was a *community *issue that drew the attention and interest of editors from all kinds of areas. It was about big picture things, not about individual editors.
And you think that harassment victims privately discussing their problems causes more of a crisis of confidence than, say, wilful misrepresentation of the nature of that discussion?
As the arbitrators said, there was a very great deal of bad faith and poor decorum in that debate. Most of the participants of the split-out ANI thread should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but are not.
So maybe there is a crisis of confidence: maybe some people currently lack the confidence that blatant trolling, gross personal attacks, witch hunts against those who are prepared to block the sockpuppets of banned users, will ever be dealt with.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:00:14 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Guy, I'm afraid you're missing the point. This was a *community *issue
that
drew the attention and interest of editors from all kinds of areas. It
was
about big picture things, not about individual editors.
And you think that harassment victims privately discussing their problems causes more of a crisis of confidence than, say, wilful misrepresentation of the nature of that discussion?
As the arbitrators said, there was a very great deal of bad faith and poor decorum in that debate. Most of the participants of the split-out ANI thread should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but are not.
So maybe there is a crisis of confidence: maybe some people currently lack the confidence that blatant trolling, gross personal attacks, witch hunts against those who are prepared to block the sockpuppets of banned users, will ever be dealt with.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Ah Guy...nowhere have I said that victims of harassment should be ostracized and prevented from discussing their situation in any forum they wish. If they find value in that listserve, more power to them. But you are now implying that !! was being perceived on that list as the sockpuppet of a banned user, and I have a bit of trouble with that. I am assuming good faith on the part of the majority of participants on that list, in that I do believe them when they say they either didn't read the memo or only gave it a cursory once-over. As SlimVirgin has said on-wiki, most of the members have more experience detecting sockpuppets than Durova does, so even a cursory glance would have told them there was nothing much in the message. And as it turns out, !! wasn't even a sockpuppet, he was just an experienced user who essentially changed his name and didn't tell everyone on Wikipedia about it. Perhaps he was trying to avoid harassment, who knows?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:00:50 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ah Guy...nowhere have I said that victims of harassment should be ostracized and prevented from discussing their situation in any forum they wish. If they find value in that listserve, more power to them.
Good, I agree with that.
But you are now implying that !! was being perceived on that list as the sockpuppet of a banned user, and I have a bit of trouble with that.
So do I. If we had any clue that !! was being perceived as such we might well have averted this whole farrago.
I am assuming good faith on the part of the majority of participants on that list, in that I do believe them when they say they either didn't read the memo or only gave it a cursory once-over. As SlimVirgin has said on-wiki, most of the members have more experience detecting sockpuppets than Durova does, so even a cursory glance would have told them there was nothing much in the message. And as it turns out, !! wasn't even a sockpuppet, he was just an experienced user who essentially changed his name and didn't tell everyone on Wikipedia about it. Perhaps he was trying to avoid harassment, who knows?
It was an experienced user apparently aiming for a sysop bit. Durova took that way beyond this simple fact.
Guy (JzG)
The general criterion of starting in with confidence is not really reliable at all.
I think most new contributors with experience in other media would look around WP a good deal before they started editing. I certainly did, not wanting to appear like a utter newbie. The general criterion of knowing what to do when you come here is not really that reliable. Even the use of abbreviations can be picked up fairly easily; other forms of writing on the web use similar methods, and its just necessary to learn a few new ones. The sort of markup used in WP is very simple--a great many people know this already--I found my problem was to unlearn the parts of html that weren't implemented.
And I know many young teenagers who can catch on to this sort of thing a lot faster than i did.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:12:46 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The general criterion of starting in with confidence is not really reliable at all.
Confidence plus edit summaries plus venues used plus citing policy plus correct formatting and Wiki syntax.
The problem is not the diagnosis that this was an experienced Wikipedia user; by his own admission, he was. The problem is assumption of bad faith. A lot of assumption of bad faith, liberally distributed.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:34:46 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
"People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
I dispute this. It is not clear to me that there is anyone exhibiting this "crisis" who was not already thoroughly convinced that any admin with even a tangential connection to SlimVirgin is tainted by evil.
I'm an example of someone who had no idea SlimVirgin was connected to this until much later on and yet had his confidence shaken from the get-go. Even now I think my reaction would be little different if none of the names of the players involved had turned out to be familiar.
On 11/30/07, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
And an excellent analysis by User:WAS 4.250 on what all the fuss is about regarding the initial block, the private/secret list etc.
"People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
A year ago (27 December 2006) we were told on by Kelly Martin on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
It seems that people have forgotten (or perhaps even never known) why #wikipedia-en-admins was created. The purpose was to have a forum where Foundation people (Jimbo, Brad, Danny, et al) could discuss high-priority issues requiring urgent action with trusted admins in a non-public place. Why non-public? Because these issues generally involved matters which were the subject of press attention or of threats of litigation, or otherwise prone to creating difficulties for the Wikimedia Foundation if not dealt with quickly and, as much as possible, quietly. Unfortunately, the channel was quickly compromised (there have been several instances of logs being leaked to various unscrupulous parties who have used them to try to create embarrassment or otherwise complicate the Foundation's efforts to avoid being embroiled in negative publicity or litigation), and as a result, such situations are now managed through other, even more secret, forums. We could shut down the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, but that wouldn't get rid of the nonpublic backchannels. It would just change their names and disperse the participants somewhat. At least #wikipedia-en-admins is an obvious channel name; it is certainly more informative than one of its progenitors, #fluffykittens. Major administrative decisions have been made, at times, in these backchannels. Some of them have been quite momentous. In most of those cases, the decisions that have been made have been decisions that could not possibly have been discussed, let alone made, on the public wiki, but nonetheless have had to be made. This is a situation where the exigencies of real life, a universe which is replete with dastardly beasts such as reporters, pundits, and attorneys, force us to dispense with a full and open public discussion because doing so is the only way to avoid a vicious nasty lawsuit that would at best cripple and at worst utterly destroy Wikipedia. You don't have to like this. I'm not really all that happy about it either. But it's the way things are, and it's not something that's going to go away any time soon. So, anyway, that's the "vital information" that gets passed through IRC backchannels like #wikipedia-en-admins, and why it cannot be passed through the public noticeboards. If you're not an admin doing crisis management for the Foundation, then you probably don't need to be there. But it would rather nice of those of you who are not doing crisis management for the Foundation to at least afford the assumption of good faith to those who are. And keep in mind that there's always the chance that if you do see an admin do something inexplicable, it might be a crisis management action, and that perhaps a polite private inquiry should be your first line of action, instead of an incendiary post to one of the noticeboards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)The Durova incident email we read, the description of its having been reviwed and approved, the agreement by many admins in the first hour that the block should not be overturned except by arbcom and that the evidence was such that it could not be given to the community for evaluation, and the frantic efforts to delete evidences needed by the community to evaluate the situation; all led people to doubt what we have been told about what goes on behind closed doors around here. It led to a crisis of confidence, a doubting that we were being told the truth, a doubting in the judgement of the people in charge of what goes on behind closed doors. Efforts to say take my word for it and to delete evidence strengthened the appearance that the words were different than the facts. You must understand that when someone questions whether you are lying saying "I am not lying" does not help. Evidence is needed. That is what is going on. WAS 4.250 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)"
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is, of course, more to it than this. !! was apparently extremely popular and managed to get unbanned roughly on that, not because he was innocent or anything.
If Durova had decided I was the returning banned user, rather than !!, and banned me, I would probably still be banned - I am not so popular as to cause this kind of outcry. It's possible I could find someone to cause a stink on my behalf and get the situation fixed ... I do know one such person, probably.
As Interiot's Wanna-be Kate's tool will tell you, I rather like this Wikipedia dealie. I would be kinda sad if I was told to go home and not come back. And so I find the fact that there's a real risk of that (even if it's small) somewhat trouble, and worth raising a stink over. I would imagine this is at play in why a lot of other editors are upset at the situation as well.
Cheers WilyD
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:50:19 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
There is, of course, more to it than this. !! was apparently extremely popular and managed to get unbanned roughly on that, not because he was innocent or anything.
No, he was unblocked because somebody knew the identity of his old account.
If it happened to you, a quick email would resolve it in the same way.
Guy (JzG)