On Nov 28, 2007 1:34 AM, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 2:46 PM, Relata Refero
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg <
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy
Read the email. It's obvious she's
accusing !! of blockable
offenses-- being a WR Sockpuppet.
To you, perhaps.
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.
So? Unless you assume that the purpose of the cyberstalking list is to
block users, then there's no reason to assume that those who actually
read the e-mail (and it's unclear how many people did so) would
imagine that Durova was planning to do so. Your argument is circular,
and relies on both bad faith and hindsight.
Jay, Jay. I don't recall the details, and its unkind of you to do
this, but I am certain that throughout !! was referred to as an
example of "them". And the "them" in question were sharing a manual
something. It was, and is, patently obvious. Hindsight is not
required; bad faith is not required: It was clearly stated that !! was
a troll, and one of "them". Unless you now intend to claim that the
"them" sharing a manual are "new users", or that that is the most
> > > 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.'
Who believes that?
Why reduce it to personalities? If I quote Guy to you from earlier,
will it make you any happier? Try and resolve the problem, Jay. If you
feel that statement was an unfair caricature, correct me. Don't be
intransigent. There's been too much stubbornness for too long.
> > 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.
> Of course that isn't the only way to reconcile those statements. I can
> think of at least four other ways of reconciling them.
Do share them. It might help us.
> > 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.
> Why would you imagine people on the list *didn't* have different
> perspectives than Durova? You don't even know who is on it.
Do they, Jay? You don't think discussing ways of identifying "them" on
a list set up precisely because of what "they" have done is sharing
things with people who have a different view of the problem?
> > Jay, nobody objected to her conclusions in the email she sent. That is
> > worrying enough.
> Can I assume, then, that you take
responsibility for and support all
> content on wikien-l that you don't explicitly object to?
Do you think that that email, sent to wikien-l, would have been
allowed to pass unmentioned?
> Um, why then are people like Alec insisting that they must known the
> names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking? And what
> "processes" are you talking about?
The processes involved in reviewing blocks. The processes involved in
analysing information before those blocks are made. The processes
which determine when a marginal editor is believed to be a troll.
Those processes. Durova thought she'd done her job. She was wrong, but
I can sympathise with her, because the processes she turned to - the
list etc. - failed her. That being said, if someone else saw that
evidence and also thought it was grounds for a block, they showed
equivalent bad judgment.