So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
There's an arbitration on-going that is looking into the behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_J...
Durova has resigned as an admin. A good user appears to have left the project after being falsely accused of being a sleeper puppet.
This is a LOT of drama. ---
At this time, I can't help but point out that this could have been prevented. The names of the militia haven't yet been made public, but they won't come as a shock to anyone. We've all known about the existence of the rabid Pro-BADSITES crusaders willing to bend or break the rules in order to "defend the encyclopedia". This milita of dedicated troll fighters has been a growing problem here, leading to rampant incivility and massive rifts in the community, and bad feelings all around.
Not long ago, I asked the community (through an RFC) and then Arbcom to intervene to help rein in this behavior. Neither group did so-- Arbiters expressed the belief that it would " cause too much drama".
I understand nobody wants to deal with "drama"-laden cases, and I don't question their motives. Bu with the wisdom of hindsight, I think we've often seen that procrastinating-- putting this problems off and not confronting them immediately-- leads to the problems getting worse and worse, as people become embolden by the community's unwillingness to place checks on unacceptable behavior. I think that in the end, letting these problems continue inevitably causes far more "drama".
I can't help but think that if we had dealt with the incivility and edit-warring issues in a timely fashion, this whole "secret evidence" mess might never have occured, and Wikipedia wouldn't have lost one valuable admin and another promising editor.
Alec
Alec wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE... This is a LOT of drama.
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
There's an easy way to short-circuit most of the drama: everybody on that (or those) secret mailing lists ought to voluntarily take a pretty long wikibreak. (A year wouldn't be too long.) Their intentions were good, I know, but they got way too wrapped up in things, and they (and the rest of us) now need some time to unwrap.
On Nov 26, 2007 9:42 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
This is a LOT of drama.
But clearly not quite enough for you?
-Matt
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious about taking everything Alec says here at face value. He's presenting it from the maximum-drama, maximum-assumption-of-bad-faith point of view, in my opinion.
-Matt
There's an easy way to short-circuit most of the drama: everybody on that (or those) secret mailing lists ought to voluntarily take a pretty long wikibreak. (A year wouldn't be too long.) Their intentions were good, I know, but they got way too wrapped up in things, and they (and the rest of us) now need some time to unwrap.
It's more complicated than that. Sitting arbiters were on the list. Allegedly, three of them-- though I won't say which three are alleged to have been on the list. I think they'll come clean-- I think the community has been very clear that there's been enough secrecy here, and if they try to impede oversight from the community by refusing to admit participation, it will just contribute to the belief that they have something to hide.
I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I don't have words for how shocked I was. I know I've been a critic of a few specific members of the "militia", but I never seriously believed they were this organized and were actively evaluating "secret evidence" in what could only be called "secret trials". I never imagined they included arbiters among their ranks.
Alec
Morven wrote:
Alec wrote:
This is a LOT of drama.
But clearly not quite enough for you?
I am NOT trying to cause drama-- I am trying to help the community FIX a problem. If you seriously believe I'm just writing for giggles, fine. But I think in your heart you know I'm not trying to cause drama, I'm just a good-faith idealogue who's trying to improve the most important website on the planet.
Besides, attacking my character won't help you-- I'm not your problem this time. I had nothing to do with any of this coming to light. I didn't make the complaint, I didn't investigate, I didn't file the RFC. By the time I first heard about any of this, the RFC was in full swing and had received hundred of edits.
I know how fashionable it is to attack me, but go look at the RFC and you'll see almost everyone else regards the "secret list" revelation as every bit as problematic and dramatic as I do.
Alec
On Nov 26, 2007 10:16 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
But I think in your heart you know I'm not trying to cause drama, I'm just a good-faith idealogue who's trying to improve the most important website on the planet.
Perhaps you are not trying to cause drama. However, I believe you are trying to USE it - because it helps your cause. Ideologues are disturbing to me precisely because the ends almost always justify the means to them, and to that degree I have a problem with you.
Also, I feel, you are prone to assuming Big Bad Conspiracy and strong ideological motivation in others.
I know how fashionable it is to attack me, but go look at the RFC and you'll see almost everyone else regards the "secret list" revelation as every bit as problematic and dramatic as I do.
A lovely case of self-selected sample, I think.
-Matt
Morven wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 10:16 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I know how fashionable it is to attack me, but go look at the RFC and you'll see almost everyone else regards the "secret list" revelation as every bit as problematic and dramatic as I do.
A lovely case of self-selected sample, I think.
I'm sorry, but I think this is a lovely case of trying to rationalize away a serious problem.
Matt wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious about taking everything Alec says here at face value.
Point taken. I did mean to say, on general principles, something along the lines of "if this is true, I can't say I'm surprised".
But having skimmed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova]], it appears that the relevant particulars *are* true. (By "relevant particulars" I mean: that zeal against Wikipedia Review and its suspected supporters and sycophants had become excessive, and was being used to justify clearly unjust actions.)
Morven wrote:
Perhaps you are not trying to cause drama. However, I believe you are trying to USE it - because it helps your cause. Ideologues are disturbing to me precisely because the ends almost always justify the means to them, and to that degree I have a problem with you.
Also, I feel, you are prone to assuming Big Bad Conspiracy and strong ideological motivation in others.
One of the disturbing subthreads of the whole BADSITES debate -- I am not the first to point this out, and I may have more to say about it tomorrow -- was that anyone who argued too strongly against it was eventually branded as a "Wikipedia Review participant" or a "troll" or a "sockpuppet", and then dismissed.
Please don't do this sort of thing.
Dan Tobias was right to criticize BADSITES, and JzG's continuing attempts to paint Dan as a Wikipedia Review participant or a tireless crank didn't change the truth of Dan's arguments. Similarly, your criticism of Alec as an ideologue (a label he first used on himself, of course) doesn't change the truth of his.
Also, in the current debate, the issue is about one or more administrators -- Durova, and perhaps others -- for whom their end justified their means. So there's plenty of this to go around.
Steve Summit wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious about taking everything Alec says here at face value.
Point taken. I did mean to say, on general principles, something along the lines of "if this is true, I can't say I'm surprised".
But having skimmed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova]], it appears that the relevant particulars *are* true. (By "relevant particulars" I mean: that zeal against Wikipedia Review and its suspected supporters and sycophants had become excessive, and was being used to justify clearly unjust actions.)
I'm wary of believing anything at this point. But that in itself is a bad sign, IMO. I no longer feel confident that "the system works."
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
The secrecy is what's most toxic. Maybe we should start applying Verifiability outside of just the encyclopedic content.
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
SUPPOSEDLY, if I understand the shape of things , that's not a scenario you have to worry about.
Supposedly, the names of everybody involved has already been revealed by one or more list participants. Anyone who hasn't come forward before the start of the election is, supposedly, going to have their involvement revealed and substantiated with evidence. But of course, nobody wants it to come to that-- it would be better for the community (and much less dramatic) if everyone involved comes forward on their own, so atleast until the election starts, THERE IS NO DEADLINE.
Again, that's not coming from me. I don't have the full list names or the emails, and I won't be the one doing any revealing. Despite my verbosity, I'm really not that involved in this dispute-- I've been playing catch up from the start, and I'm always the last person to hear about these things.
Alec
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
SUPPOSEDLY, if I understand the shape of things , that's not a scenario you have to worry about.
Supposedly, the names of everybody involved has already been revealed by one or more list participants. Anyone who hasn't come forward before the start of the election is, supposedly, going to have their involvement revealed and substantiated with evidence. But of course, nobody wants it to come to that-- it would be better for the community (and much less dramatic) if everyone involved comes forward on their own, so atleast until the election starts, THERE IS NO DEADLINE.
{{citation needed}}. This is exactly the sort of secretive "behind the scenes" assurances that appears to have caused this train wreck in the first place. At this point the only thing I'm willing to accept at face value is that there's something nasty going on here, because I've read through plenty enough ANI and RfC material in the past hour or so to convince me of that much at least.
Again, that's not coming from me. I don't have the full list names or the emails, and I won't be the one doing any revealing. Despite my verbosity, I'm really not that involved in this dispute-- I've been playing catch up from the start, and I'm always the last person to hear about these things.
Who's it coming from, then? I'm willing to follow the chain of inquiry the hard way, but I feel it should be done in a public and verifiable manner otherwise it's pointless.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:59:05 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but I think this is a lovely case of trying to rationalize away a serious problem.
True - but not the one you were thinking of. There exists on Wikipedia a small group of people who will reflexively revert any removal of any link to external harassment, shouting "ZOMG! BADSITES!" and calling the world to come and look.
For the victims of offsite harassment, this is a really bad atmosphere. They have only two choices at present: leave harassment in place, or have it shouted from the rooftops.
I'd love to find a way to avoid both. Unfortunately this small group of people will not allow it.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
Supposedly, the names of everybody involved has already been revealed by one or more list participants. Anyone who hasn't come forward before the start of the election is, supposedly, going to have their involvement revealed and substantiated with evidence. But of course, nobody wants it to come to that-- it would be better for the community (and much less dramatic) if everyone involved comes forward on their own, so atleast until the election starts, THERE IS NO DEADLINE.
{{citation needed}}. This is exactly the sort of secretive "behind the scenes" assurances that appears to have caused this train wreck in the first place. At this point the only thing I'm willing to accept at face value is that there's something nasty going on here, because I've read through plenty enough ANI and RfC material in the past hour or so to convince me of that much at least.
Most wise. I wouldn't want my assurances to stop you from fully investigating on your own.
Every candidate for Arbcom has now officially been asked if they were involved, and the sitting arbiters who were involved have been asked to step forward and recuse themselves from the ongoing arbitration.
Having been involved is NOT one of the seven deadly sins, but the community does have a right to know. On the other hand, if anyone can't be trusted to tell the truth about their involvement, they definitely can't be trusted to occupy an arbcom seat-- in my opinion. I actually don't expect we'll have anyone who refuses to level with the community on this.
Alec
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Who's it coming from, then? I'm willing to follow the chain of inquiry the hard way, but I feel it should be done in a public and verifiable manner otherwise it's pointless.
To follow up on myself and bypass a lot of links in the chain of inquiry, I've just got to reading some of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Evidence and there's a ton of useful information about this mess there. I should've skipped the RfC and ANI stuff and started with this. Good to see the ArbCom moving so rapidly.
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Dude-- that's already been admitted to. The list WAS secret-- Durova's email admits that. The list DID involve secret evidence against !!, we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself. I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their existence such a closely guarded secret?
If it was totally above board, why wasn't the ENTIRE arbcom included in the list-- why only send "secret evidence" to some arbiters, rather than others, if not to 'stack the deck'?
If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go so badly? Is the community's opinion just not valid? Has an ARMY of ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Thanks Guy-- I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
Alec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
There appear to be two different "secret" mailing lists being referred to in the ArbCom evidence page, the cyberstalking one at http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking and another one about which little is known. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There appear to be two different "secret" mailing lists being referred to in the ArbCom evidence page, the cyberstalking one at http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking and another one about which little is known. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Alec
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:19:11 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Dude-- that's already been admitted to. The list WAS secret-- Durova's email admits that. The list DID involve secret evidence against !!, we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself. I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
No, what you are "revealing" is your own spin on it. The list is not secret, it is private. The two are different. It does not exist as a covert "votes for banning", which did not stop Durova from sending that email. The list exists to discuss harassment and its effects.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their existence such a closely guarded secret?
It wasn't. It just wasn't advertised. There was no reason to advertise it. We already knew who the victims of harassment on Wikipedia were, so there was no need to actively solicit others.
If it was totally above board, why wasn't the ENTIRE arbcom included in the list-- why only send "secret evidence" to some arbiters, rather than others, if not to 'stack the deck'?
Paranoid fantasy. People were invited to join who have expressed an interest in harassment. Some of these are arbitrators. This is not ex-officio, it's an informal list, so inviting the entire arbitration committee would be unnecessary. Not all arbitrators want to wade through a few hundred more emails.
If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go so badly? Is the community's opinion just not valid? Has an ARMY of ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
The RfC against Durova went badly because Durova fucked up badly. And because there are some people who already hate Durova, some of whom are the ones who were harassing her.
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Thanks Guy-- I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is trolling.
You could always try, you know, not doing it.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:24:26 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There appear to be two different "secret" mailing lists being referred to in the ArbCom evidence page, the cyberstalking one at http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking and another one about which little is known. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.
I am on at least three private lists, including both the lists under discussion. Jimbo and the arbitrators know about them.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:25:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:25:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
So, not only WAS it secret, it's still secret, even now, even after all the uproar about how inappropriate secret lists are?
Alec
investigations-1. I'm quite sure I've said this somewhere in public, but, then again, maybe not.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:51:32 -0500 From: alecmconroy@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:25:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
So, not only WAS it secret, it's still secret, even now, even after all the uproar about how inappropriate secret lists are?
Alec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
investigations-l, sorry.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:09:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
investigations-1. I'm quite sure I've said this somewhere in public, but, then again, maybe not.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:51:32 -0500 From: alecmconroy@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:25:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
So, not only WAS it secret, it's still secret, even now, even after all the uproar about how inappropriate secret lists are?
Alec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Wrong again, make that wpinvestigations-l. Name's changed...
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
----------------------------------------
From: moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:13:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
investigations-l, sorry.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:09:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
investigations-1. I'm quite sure I've said this somewhere in public, but, then again, maybe not.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:51:32 -0500 From: alecmconroy@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:25:55 -0500, "Alec Conroy" wrote:
Yes, unless I'm mistaken, nobody has publicly revealed the name of this second "double secret" 'investigative' list, so that'd be the place to start. Guy, you're online-- you wanna field this one?
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
So, not only WAS it secret, it's still secret, even now, even after all the uproar about how inappropriate secret lists are?
Alec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Feel like a local wherever you go. http://www.backofmyhand.com
Except in wasn't used for sole express purpose of helping people manage harassment, it seems to have been used a fair chunk to bitch about people - some of those maybe deserving, others definitely not. It then spawned a bastard daughter, wpinvestigations-l, which really was used for all sorts of odd purposes and bizarre conversations. This one didn't have Jimbo (as far as I can tell), and it only had a couple arbitrators. Some of the arbitrators appear not have been in on the cyberstalking loop, either.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: guy.chapman@spamcop.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:05:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is trolling.
Because "I know more about this, so trust me." has worked so well in the past. You've said, 'No, you're wrong!' and seem to be thinking that that is enough argument/contradiction to make him feel everything is ok, then. It doesn't and *shouldn't* work that way.
Guy, the attitude you're pushing here is *exactly* what has ticked off Alec, and had myself (in the RFC) and Bryan (on the list) ruminating that WP:V should apply to every part of Wikipedia decision making.
I mean, I'm no stranger to harassment (tiny harassment); did any of you see/remember the crap that spewed out from my RfA at the start of the month? And yeah, it heppened because I'm a *girl*, in an attempt to rattle me as a member of the fairer sex or something. And I genuinely believe that handling it ON WIKI, where everyone can see what was done, and why it was done, and that it's not acceptable, and the official response, etc., is the best thing in the world. If solutions and responses are taken off wiki so all we see is, 'He was deleted for harassment, everything he's done was oversighted, trust us.' then I have a serious problem with that, and this list, which you're trying to make sound like a little support group to discuss harassment and it's effects on Wikipedia, seems to have the wherewithal to do that, and based on the one obvious case that's happened, does indeed seem to do it. That's very disturbing to me.
Thes.
On Nov 27, 2007 3:07 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:19:11 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Dude-- that's already been admitted to. The list WAS secret-- Durova's email admits that. The list DID involve secret evidence against !!, we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself. I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
No, what you are "revealing" is your own spin on it. The list is not secret, it is private. The two are different. It does not exist as a covert "votes for banning", which did not stop Durova from sending that email. The list exists to discuss harassment and its effects.
Guy, I rather believe that most of us are concerned that this list or another like it has been perverted from that goal towards creating an unfortunate echo chamber for those who would like to see more zealous attempts to stamp out what they think is maliciously instigated drama and disruption. This might create the effect that individual subscribers think actions are 'approved' when they're actually unread or misunderstood, or in cultivating a climate of groupthink in which one side of the evidence is presented and people show up in on-wiki discussions in a bunch with their minds made up, thus increasing drama all round. (None of this is good for the project. Note that there are absolutely no assumptions of bad faith, caricatures of an opposing viewpoint or anything of the sort in the above discussion, so do try not to respond as if there are.)
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their existence such a closely guarded secret?
It wasn't. It just wasn't advertised. There was no reason to advertise it. We already knew who the victims of harassment on Wikipedia were, so there was no need to actively solicit others.
Good lord. That's patently absurd. Not everyone on WP who was 'harassed' in the sense in which you are using the word was done so by the websites we're aware of, and the fact that you would say/think that is another indication that you're taking too narrowly-focused a view of the problem.
If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go
so badly? Is the community's opinion just not valid? Has an ARMY of ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
The RfC against Durova went badly because Durova fucked up badly. And because there are some people who already hate Durova, some of whom are the ones who were harassing her.
And also because a large number of people just don't like the climate, and believe it inhibits contribution. Please see the outside opinion beginning "I am just a small editor..."
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Thanks Guy-- I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is trolling.
You could always try, you know, not doing it.
If so, you could occasionally leave it to others to respond, Guy. Especially if you notice that your responses recently are not really making the situation calmer or leading to some form of natural resolution most of the time. To move away from the abstract from a moment, I think we would be well served if you, Guy, decided to be a bit calmer and less impulsive about these issues; and Alec, just don't use the word BADSITES again, please. This is a genuine problem, and we don't want another distracting volley of this sort.
RR
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:51:32 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Sure. "None of your business". There ya go.
So, not only WAS it secret, it's still secret, even now, even after all the uproar about how inappropriate secret lists are?
Private <> secret.
Tell you what, you first. Give me the names of all Wikipedia editors with whom you are in email contact, and send the arbitration committee copies of all emails you have sent which discuss other Wikipedians.
No, not really.
In this case arbitrators *have* copies of all emails that have been sent (because there are arbitrators on the lists), so actually we can be reasonably certain that, human stupidity aside, there is nothing awfully wrong happening.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:20:34 +0000, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Except in wasn't used for sole express purpose of helping people manage harassment, it seems to have been used a fair chunk to bitch about people - some of those maybe deserving, others definitely not. It then spawned a bastard daughter, wpinvestigations-l, which really was used for all sorts of odd purposes and bizarre conversations. This one didn't have Jimbo (as far as I can tell), and it only had a couple arbitrators. Some of the arbitrators appear not have been in on the cyberstalking loop, either.
No list remains entirely on topic, and people who have been subject to harassment have a lot of hurt to work through.
You are assuming ill faith to a quite unreasonable degree. So what if not all the arbitration committee were on the lists? It doesn't matter. Some are, and so is Jimbo, and when something stupid gets said we allow the person to work through their pain and frustration and come out the other side.
Durova did not have support for what she did. She misinterpreted silence as assent. Had she asked "should I block this editor?" I think the answer would have been no, since there was nothing to indicate a problem from Wikipedia behaviour.
Aside from a couple of self-evident sockpuppets, confirmed by CheckUser, nobody has been blocked as a result of discussions on said lists, that I can recall. Even if the lists had been used as a sanity check before blocking, that would be no different to what goes on on the admin IRC channel every day.
Remember, each administrator is responsible for his or her own actions. Discussion beforehand can help avoid a mistake, but the fact of having discussed it does not make it any less an individual responsibility.
If you commented in IRC that you were about to block X, and one or two people said "great, X is a pain in the ass", and it went to the admin boards and your block was found to be invalid, would that be IRC's fault? I'd say not. If, on the other hand, IRC said "whoa, no, that's actually user Y doing some cleanup work" then a mistake would be avoided, and that would be good.
What Durova did is covered by Hanlon's Razor, but assuming malice is precisely what is going on. At some point the culture on Wikipedia seems to have been infected by "assume bad faith and extrapolate from there" - I do not know where this comes from, although I have my suspicions and nobody here would be surprised to hear what those suspicions are.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:27:08 -0500, "Stephanie M. Clarkson" thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is trolling.
Because "I know more about this, so trust me." has worked so well in the past. You've said, 'No, you're wrong!' and seem to be thinking that that is enough argument/contradiction to make him feel everything is ok, then. It doesn't and *shouldn't* work that way.
Not really, no. If Alec were to ask, rather than assert form suspicions founded in ill-faith, then I would be more than happy to tell him. Actually, looking back, I *have* told him, he simply refuses to believe me. I can't fix that, sorry.
Guy, the attitude you're pushing here is *exactly* what has ticked off Alec, and had myself (in the RFC) and Bryan (on the list) ruminating that WP:V should apply to every part of Wikipedia decision making.
You are working from a false premise. This was not Wikipedia decision making. It was a group of people discussing how they might fix a problem.
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 27, 2007 4:25 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:27:08 -0500, "Stephanie M. Clarkson" thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is trolling.
Because "I know more about this, so trust me." has worked so well in the past. You've said, 'No, you're wrong!' and seem to be thinking that that is enough argument/contradiction to make him feel everything is ok, then. It doesn't and *shouldn't* work that way.
Not really, no. If Alec were to ask, rather than assert form suspicions founded in ill-faith, then I would be more than happy to tell him. Actually, looking back, I *have* told him, he simply refuses to believe me. I can't fix that, sorry.
You didn't tell him anything about the mailing list before his first post, the one you called trolling. Durova did, and he responded to it with reasons why he felt that his interpretation was correct. If extreme, it appears to be one that a lot of people believe is correct in its essentials, though they may not invest it with the cabalistic overtones or ill-faith that you appear to think Alec does. We all do our best to believe you, Guy, and we don't doubt your good faith. That doesn't mean we aren't going to question you or whoever else when they make pronouncements, and enough people have serious questions these days. We're talking here about institutional problems, so lets be a little calmer and less personal about it.
RR
As David says above, the definition of cabal is any group of which the person crying cabal is not a member.
The list was set up because a conversation between a number of people in a cc list was causing occasional dropped messages (because people hit reply not reply all) and because it did seem that there was a problem that wanted talking about.
If you want to ban all discussion of Wikipedians in any forum other than Wikipedia then you will have to shut down IRC, this list, arbcom-l, and probably the "email this user" feature as well. It is in the nature of people that they wish to explore things. It is also obviously the case that people might say things privately that they would not say publicly, for any one of a number of reasons. That does not mean that any such statement is a statement of intent, rather than, say, a shout of frustration.
Do you honestly think that members of the arbitration committee would collude in the blocking of Wikipedians who had done nothing wrong? That is,. essentially, what is being suggested here. I find it pretty incredible as an assertion.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
What have I ever said that would make you jump to that conclusion? Stop tarring everyone that things the list is a terrible, completely anti-Wiki idea with that brush. It goes beyond assuming bad faith. Indeed, I referred to WR as a bunch of cranks at one point. Neither WR nor a private list (the 'subscribe' page for cyberstalking said, after all, 'you can apply for the list, but we might not let you on.') is an appropriate place to be discussing Wikipedia business, blocks, etc.
The only conversations I've had with Wikipedians off-wiki have been things that were completely not-related to Wikipedia ("Hi, I notice you live within 10 minutes of me and we're working on the same WikiProject, so we share some interests. Want to get coffee?"). Even with people who I'm in regular social contact with off Wikipedia, I would never consider sending them private email about a Wikipedian issue; anything that deals with Wikipedia actions should be discussed on Wikipedia.
Thes.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:38 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
You didn't tell him anything about the mailing list before his first post, the one you called trolling.
I had already commented on it on the arbitration case.
But let's leave it there. I will ask Jimbo to comment here, if he has time.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:11:24 -0500, "Stephanie M. Clarkson" thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
What have I ever said that would make you jump to that conclusion? Stop tarring everyone that things the list is a terrible, completely anti-Wiki idea with that brush. It goes beyond assuming bad faith. Indeed, I referred to WR as a bunch of cranks at one point. Neither WR nor a private list (the 'subscribe' page for cyberstalking said, after all, 'you can apply for the list, but we might not let you on.') is an appropriate place to be discussing Wikipedia business, blocks, etc.
Well I'm sorry you interpreted it that way, it was not my intention. It is not an "anti-wiki" idea, any more than OTRS or IRC are anti-wiki ideas. Sometimes you need to allow people to let off steam or release hurt or explore a thought in some kind of privacy.
Guy (JzG)
Stephanie M. Clarkson wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
What have I ever said that would make you jump to that conclusion? Stop tarring everyone that things the list is a terrible, completely anti-Wiki idea with that brush. It goes beyond assuming bad faith. Indeed, I referred to WR as a bunch of cranks at one point. Neither WR nor a private list (the 'subscribe' page for cyberstalking said, after all, 'you can apply for the list, but we might not let you on.') is an appropriate place to be discussing Wikipedia business, blocks, etc.
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me visiting Wikipedia Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself. Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me visiting Wikipedia Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself. Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?
I did, in my way. I'd looked at them once or twice, and thought, 'what a generally nasty minded group.' But I've been there more than a few times this week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_commen...
I still think they're out for blood enmasse and not reliable because of that (the amount of gloating over Durova's downfall was disgusting), but I want information to make decisions, and they had some of it, while Wikipedia was taking it away, despite the fact it never needed to or should have been 'private' to begin with.
S.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Well I'm sorry you interpreted it that way, it was not my intention. It is not an "anti-wiki" idea, any more than OTRS or IRC are anti-wiki ideas. Sometimes you need to allow people to let off steam or release hurt or explore a thought in some kind of privacy.
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked.
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It is not an "anti-wiki" idea, any more than OTRS or IRC are anti-wiki ideas. Sometimes you need to allow people to let off steam or release hurt or explore a thought in some kind of privacy.
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked. If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
And to be absolutely clear here, if I were to block someone on the basis of information I could not easily share it would only be *after* running it by the arbitrators. I already emailed details of at least one block to arbcom-l. That still does not make it anyone's call but my own.
We should not neglect here the obvious interpretation: that Durova simply screwed up. Some of us have been somewhat taken aback, and may have learned something from it. But ultimately it was Durova's call and she has taken a real beating for it. The same has happened with blocks resulting from misjudgment of conversations on IRC, I seem to recall. I used to be very anti-IRC until I tried it.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment. If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there would be no effective difference.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
No, they don't. Administrators are individually responsible for each and every administrative action they take. But I don't see how that is contradicted by what happened here: Durova was responsible for the block of !!, and she has been held to account for it. Precisely no-one appears to be arguing that Durova's responsibility is diminished because she ran it by a select group before taking action; even if that group had all supported the proposed action, it would still have been the responsibility of whoever performed the block.
On 11/27/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
. Administrators are individually responsible for each and every administrative action they take. But I don't see how that is contradicted by what happened here: Durova was responsible for the block of !!, and she has been held to account for it. Precisely no-one appears to be arguing that Durova's responsibility is diminished because she ran it by a select group before taking action; even if that group had all supported the proposed action, it would still have been the responsibility of whoever performed the block.
It was her responsibility-- but it was their responsibility too. She drew upon the authority of others several times in justifying her block. The fact that arbiters had endorsed the block was implied if not outright stated.
If an arbiter advises an admin to take an erroneous action, who made the error? Well, everybody involved.
But, we're not saying anybody should be burned at the stake over this-- but we have some refs who made completely unreasonable calls, and we need to know who, so that we can help them and us learn how to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. THe people who were involved should be WELCOMING this process, not trying to hide in the shadows lest people know how badly the blew the call.
Durova here was a great example. She stood up, she admitted she had made the call, admitted some of her her error, and decided she needed to ask the community for their trust again. Her actions in how she handled the error have been 100% exemplary.
Unfortunately, her associates haven't yet worked up the courage to follow her example. They ought to stand up, say "Yep, I saw the evidence, and here's what I said about it. I told her !! deserved blocking, I was wrong, and I apologize, and I will try to do better in the future".
To the people who saw the evidence and endorsed the block, I would say this. I know it's never easy to come clean when you made a mistake. It's embarassing, it's frustrating. I know being honest with the community will mean taking a reputation hit in the short term-- but it's the right thing to do for the project. Ya made a mistake. Doesn't make you an evil person, doesn't make you a bad person-- ya just need to own up to it.
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 5:02 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
It was her responsibility-- but it was their responsibility too. She drew upon the authority of others several times in justifying her block. The fact that arbiters had endorsed the block was implied if not outright stated.
To the best of my knowledge, to the degree that Durova meant to imply that, she was simply flat-out wrong. I cannot speak to what Durova meant to imply; you should ask her on that.
No arbitrator to my knowledge gave any kind of endorsement. I certainly did not.
Please stop trying to believe in a conspiracy.
-Matt
On 27/11/2007, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me visiting Wikipedia Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself. Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?
I did, in my way. I'd looked at them once or twice, and thought, 'what a generally nasty minded group.' But I've been there more than a few times this week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_commen...
I still think they're out for blood enmasse and not reliable because of that (the amount of gloating over Durova's downfall was disgusting), but I want information to make decisions, and they had some of it, while Wikipedia was taking it away, despite the fact it never needed to or should have been 'private' to begin with.
S.
Wikipedia Review's what you make it basically. All it's meant to be is a forum for freer speech than is allowed on Wikipedia (where simply disagreeing over a point with an admin can get you banned!) - there's nice people and bad people, and the views of individual members are very rarely those of everyone on the board, like Wikipedia.
Sure I personally don't agree with "gloating", but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to delete peoples' messages and ban them as would probably be the case with Wikipedia's more stringent rules.
On 11/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:02 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
It was her responsibility-- but it was their responsibility too. She drew upon the authority of others several times in justifying her block. The fact that arbiters had endorsed the block was implied if not outright stated.
To the best of my knowledge, to the degree that Durova meant to imply that, she was simply flat-out wrong. I cannot speak to what Durova meant to imply; you should ask her on that.
No arbitrator to my knowledge gave any kind of endorsement. I certainly did not.
To the best of my recollection and having gone back to look at some of the discussion, Durova never claimed that arbitrators had endorsed the block. She simply said that they had seen the evidence, as for instance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Please stop trying to believe in a conspiracy. -Matt
What conspiracy is it that you think I believe? That a bunch of people got together to create a secret list where they could investigate editors, coordinate activity, and present evidence to a pre-screened group of administrator and arbiters?
Last week I called that a conspiracy theory last week. Now it appears to be a sad fact.
Alec
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
Oh Bryan, don't forget that you have roughly 3 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes, and 28 seconds to submit your candidate statement, otherwise the ratio of vacant seats to supportable candidates will be uncomfortably high.
—C.W.
On 11/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:02 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote: No arbitrator to my knowledge gave any kind of endorsement. I certainly did not.
That's good to hear. Arbcom will still have to consider whether participation in a secret list where secret evidence is presented is an appropriate behavior, and of course, the arbiters who actually did participate will need to recuse themselves from voting on that issue I would hope.
We're still left with the puzzle-- who DID enthusiastically endorse the block, and what could they possibly have been thinking???
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 7:14 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
What conspiracy is it that you think I believe?
That, despite what Durova says, despite what several AC members and many other people say, that this couldn't possibly be simply that Durova made an assumption that she shouldn't have made and made a bad block, for all of 75 minutes.
She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a banned user grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other possibilities.
-Matt
On Nov 27, 2007 7:21 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's good to hear. Arbcom will still have to consider whether participation in a secret list where secret evidence is presented is an appropriate behavior, and of course, the arbiters who actually did participate will need to recuse themselves from voting on that issue I would hope.
I participated in such a list largely to keep tabs on what was going on and in the hope that, were anything rash to be proposed, I would have a chance of stopping it before it happened. Unfortunately Durova did not run this block past either list. She posted an email laying out why !! appeared to be a returned user to the cyberstalking list, which I did not read until after she did the block (the list has been quite high volume) but did not to the best of my knowledge give anyone any indication that she was going to block.
If I had advised Durova to perform the block, I would recuse. However, I did not, and thus will not.
-Matt
On Nov 27, 2007 4:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:24:26 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There appear to be two different "secret" mailing lists being referred to in the ArbCom evidence page, the cyberstalking one at http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking and another one about which little is known. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.
I am on at least three private lists, including both the lists under discussion. Jimbo and the arbitrators know about them.
In fact, you run one of them.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:21:37 -0800, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a banned user grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other possibilities.
Exactly right. And in as much as any of us agreed with her, it was that this did indeed look like a returning user grooming an account for adminship.
The concern that a banned user might be doing exactly this, is a real one.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 7:14 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
What conspiracy is it that you think I believe?
That, despite what Durova says, despite what several AC members and many other people say, that this couldn't possibly be simply that Durova made an assumption that she shouldn't have made and made a bad block, for all of 75 minutes.
No, I really don't believe it was just an oops, I think it was absolutely inherent in the very way the list was set up. As I've said before, I think the analogy of drunk driving is very apt here. If a drunk driver runs a red light and kills someone, it's not "just" an accident. Any reasonable person could know that driving while intoxicated is highly likely to lead to "accidents".
Secret evidence and secret mailing lists are such a situation. Deprived of the ability for people to fully examine the evidence against them, and more importantly, deprived of the ability for the community to give feedback, is just waiting for the [[User:!!|!!]] to happen again and again and again.
That's the point that still hasn't been made. As far as I know, the whole little "militia" is going to chalk this up to just an "oops" and will continue business as usual.
Who could have forseen that "secret courts" and "secret evidence" would inevitably lead to erroneous bans? I did.
On November 15, Durova raised the hypothetical prospect of secret evidence on this mailing list, and I warned her as strongly as I could that such processes are inevitably going to convinct innocents. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085303.html
And how long did that Cassandra-esque prediction take to come true? A total of 3 days. -- So, yeah, no-- I don't think it was a one-time oops. I predicted a system like this would cause these very problems, and lo and behold, they did.
The question for Arbcom is-- will this secret lists with secret evidence system be allowed to continue to operate (and, I would argue, continue to make more and more false accusations)? or will it stop?
As a participant in the lists, I appreciate your acknowledging your participation, but I can't fathom how we can reasonably expect you to be impartial about your own behavior-- but I'll leave that thread for better persons than myself.
Alec
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:35:33 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I am on at least three private lists, including both the lists under discussion. Jimbo and the arbitrators know about them.
In fact, you run one of them.
I do now, yes. Jimbo was happy to own it, in fact, but I probably have more time.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Dude-- that's already been admitted to. The list WAS secret-- Durova's email admits that. The list DID involve secret evidence against !!, we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself. I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their existence such a closely guarded secret?
If it was totally above board, why wasn't the ENTIRE arbcom included in the list-- why only send "secret evidence" to some arbiters, rather than others, if not to 'stack the deck'?
If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go so badly? Is the community's opinion just not valid? Has an ARMY of ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Thanks Guy-- I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
Alec
If I may, I know that this topic has caused a lot of drama. Alec's concerns are to some extent valid. In this particular case I disagree strongly with them in so far as off-wiki communication is a standard thing and is often necessary when dealing with determined disruption. However, his position should not by any means be dismissed as trolling. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make it trolling.
Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the time. There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter. We have an encyclopedia to edit. Can we go back to that now? Please?
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
there's a ton of useful information about this mess there. I should've skipped the RfC and ANI stuff and started with this. Good to see the ArbCom moving so rapidly.
One might speculate that the committee wishes to reach a final decision before any further quantities of meta-dubious evidence[1] are leaked (and I'm pretty sure more will be, sooner or later, stay tuned). Regardless of whether any of the other correspondence is pertinent to this particular case, regardless of whether it's being put to more rational ends than the ones we've seen, and regardless of whether the overall behavior there is ~95% defensible, even if laughable. Nobody would want to answer questions more questions about that, not today anyway. Can't blame 'em for that.
—C.W.
[1] i.e. dubious evidence of the covert trading of dubious evidence, in one dubious smoke-filled venue or another.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
Oh Bryan, don't forget that you have roughly 3 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes, and 28 seconds to submit your candidate statement, otherwise the ratio of vacant seats to supportable candidates will be uncomfortably high.
Eeps. On the one hand, I want to jump into the piranha pool even less now. On the other hand, maybe I really should. I'm going to go hide under my bedsheets and think about it some more. :)
On 11/27/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:42:44 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Dude-- that's already been admitted to. The list WAS secret-- Durova's email admits that. The list DID involve secret evidence against !!, we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself. I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage harassment.
If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their existence such a closely guarded secret?
If it was totally above board, why wasn't the ENTIRE arbcom included in the list-- why only send "secret evidence" to some arbiters, rather than others, if not to 'stack the deck'?
If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go so badly? Is the community's opinion just not valid? Has an ARMY of ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this egregious trolling. Way to go, Alec.
Thanks Guy-- I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
Alec
If I may, I know that this topic has caused a lot of drama. Alec's concerns are to some extent valid. In this particular case I disagree strongly with them in so far as off-wiki communication is a standard thing and is often necessary when dealing with determined disruption. However, his position should not by any means be dismissed as trolling. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make it trolling.
Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the time. There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter. We have an encyclopedia to edit. Can we go back to that now? Please?
One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons, and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot. Secret evidence on secret mailing lists leading to blocks where the reasoning won't be discussed? Am I popular enough that if I got the block instead of !! that I'd get the necessary outrage to get me unblocked? I have my doubts ... and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Cheers WilyD
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked. If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment. If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there would be no effective difference.
I'm not saying private discussions should be forbidden. That would be silly and unenforceable. I do want it made very clear that one can't use private discussions as a foundation for actual live public on-Wikipedia sanctions. Unless it's something really extreme like an OFFICE action, the evidence needs to come out before action can be taken based on it.
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked. If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's good to hear. Arbcom will still have to consider whether participation in a secret list where secret evidence is presented is an appropriate behavior, and of course, the arbiters who actually did participate will need to recuse themselves from voting on that issue I would hope.
I fear you are not making a lot of sense to me here.
You can't stop any editor talking to any other editor they want to about anything.
If you think you can, I invite you to detail precisely what you plan and why it's a good idea.
- d.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:51:58 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
No, I really don't believe it was just an oops, I think it was absolutely inherent in the very way the list was set up. As I've said before, I think the analogy of drunk driving is very apt here. If a drunk driver runs a red light and kills someone, it's not "just" an accident. Any reasonable person could know that driving while intoxicated is highly likely to lead to "accidents".
To the best of my knowledge the members of the group, which does include Jimbo as well as members of the arbitration committee, are all perfectly sober.
If the group were in reality behaving as a hive-mind in the way you suggest, it would hardly be necessary for you to expend so much effort in attempting to find out who they are. It would be obvious.
Secret evidence and secret mailing lists are such a situation. Deprived of the ability for people to fully examine the evidence against them, and more importantly, deprived of the ability for the community to give feedback, is just waiting for the [[User:!!|!!]] to happen again and again and again.
Private <> secret, as you have been told many times. You have no access to arbcom-l, and matters of much greater import are discussed there. Will you be demanding that arbcom-l is opened? You have no access to the admin IRC channel. Will you be demanding that? You have no access to OTRS. Will you be demanding that?
That's the point that still hasn't been made. As far as I know, the whole little "militia" is going to chalk this up to just an "oops" and will continue business as usual.
No, I think a lesson has been learned: since silence may be mistaken for assent, make dissent evident. And if you are thinking of blocking someone, it's wise to actually say so beforehand so that perhaps your friends can stop you doing something stupid.
Who could have forseen that "secret courts" and "secret evidence" would inevitably lead to erroneous bans? I did.
There are no secret courts. There is no erroneous ban. !! was unblocked after 75 minutes. It was a mistake, made out of excess of zeal.
The real problem, Alec, is that "cabal" in this case is equivalent to "group of which you are not a member".
Guy (JzG)
On 27/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment. If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there would be no effective difference.
I'm not saying private discussions should be forbidden. That would be silly and unenforceable. I do want it made very clear that one can't use private discussions as a foundation for actual live public on-Wikipedia sanctions. Unless it's something really extreme like an OFFICE action, the evidence needs to come out before action can be taken based on it.
This is well-established, e.g. an admin might use an IRC discussion for advice or sanity-checking an action before making it, but the action is entirely their own responsibility. They might later explain it as having led from following the bad advice of others, but that doesn't take away any of their own responsibility for their actions.
Editors talk to each other in groups all the time. They make friends and stuff. They get the measure of each other as editors and project participants. This is normal.
Of course, if someone posts an incendiary message to a mailing list implying any such group they're not part of is a cabal that must be rooted out, there's going to be quite a bit of heat before there's light.
To such editors, may I just suggest: you'll catch more flies with honey than gobbets of flaming napalm.
- d.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:34 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the
time.
There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter. We
have an
encyclopedia to edit. Can we go back to that now? Please?
One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons, and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot. Secret evidence on secret mailing lists leading to blocks where the reasoning won't be discussed? Am I popular enough that if I got the block instead of !! that I'd get the necessary outrage to get me unblocked? I have my doubts ... and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Cheers WilyD
Exactly. All of us are. Which is why we are currently begging people to turn down the paranoia a bit. Yes, perhaps a banned editor is grooming an account for adminship. Those of us willing to think rationally can tell that the chances of the banned user in question not being recognised in the normal course of business combined with the ease of emergency desysopping an admin gone rogue mean that this is simply not something that we should be unduly terrified of; we certainly should not cause people who write articles to reconsider their level of involvement because of it. Instead, we are subject to this climate of paranoia. Nobody is comfortable when this kind of siege mentality develops. The outside opinion at the RfC that I quoted earlier demonstrates it. But I am yet to see a single acknowledgment that this stuff has gone too far.
RR RR
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
No admin should ever be under any illusion that no group of fellow admins, with the explicit exception of the arbitration committee acting as a body corporate in their official capacity, has the authority to okay anything.
All you ever get is a straw poll of how something might fly. And if you ask the wrong people, or the wrong question, or on the wrong day, then you *will* get the wrong answer. The only trustworthy answer is "no", and even that is not always trustworthy.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Ha! You want to see the "WTF????" messages that went round afterwards. I mean, we like Durova and are doing our best to help her get over this, but really, we have been pretty blunt with her.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment. If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there would be no effective difference.
I'm not saying private discussions should be forbidden. That would be silly and unenforceable. I do want it made very clear that one can't use private discussions as a foundation for actual live public on-Wikipedia sanctions. Unless it's something really extreme like an OFFICE action, the evidence needs to come out before action can be taken based on it.
Of course. And let's be absolutely clear here, nobody on any of those lists has ever been under any illusion about that. We have all been around long enough not to be so silly. Everything has to be weighed according to whether it will fly in the community.
An example is the mechanism I recently proposed for dealing with trolling. I think it might help, so do some others, but we don't know, so I've punted it on the admin noticeboard to see what others think.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:56:25 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the time. There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter.
A masterfully succinct and wholly accurate synopsis.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:04:50 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons, and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot.
That's *extremely* unlikely to happen, *especially* if you are using and have only ever used one account.
Sure, it happened once. Hands up anyone who wants to try it again? Any takers? Not me, I can tell you.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked. If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
One of the things that isn't included in this thread is hte email Durova sent to the list. If you haven't seen it, go read it, and you'll see why we're all so stressed out by this. There isn't a person on the encyclopedia who couldn't be banned by this sort of kangaroo court, if someone had an ax to grind. And if the discussions are secret, they'll never even know they were being suspected-- they'll just wake up banned one day, just like !!.
Durova DID post the "evidence" to the list, and members of that list DID reply back to her "enthusiastically endorsing" the block. (or so she says, and I believe her).
Even if she didn't explicitly propose banning, she did explicitly accuse !! of being a sockpuppet of a WR user. And what do we do with Sockpuppets of WR users? Just because she didn't say the magic word "I'm gonna ban them", it was obvious where it was going. Anyone who read hte email and responded with anything other than "Are you crazy, this is NOT sufficient evidence to prove he's a sockpuppet" needs looking at, because I think the community wouldn't trust their judgment anymore than it trusts Durova's.
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 9:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:51:58 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
No, I really don't believe it was just an oops, I think it was absolutely inherent in the very way the list was set up. As I've said before, I think the analogy of drunk driving is very apt here. If a drunk driver runs a red light and kills someone, it's not "just" an accident. Any reasonable person could know that driving while intoxicated is highly likely to lead to "accidents".
To the best of my knowledge the members of the group, which does include Jimbo as well as members of the arbitration committee, are all perfectly sober.
If the group were in reality behaving as a hive-mind in the way you suggest, it would hardly be necessary for you to expend so much effort in attempting to find out who they are. It would be obvious.
I personally don't intend to follow the links back and try and analyse times of votes and blocks and who agreed with what and other such nonsense. But I dare say someone might. It might be obvious, or it might not. I would have thought that it would be best if the obsessive weren't given further reason to obsess.
Secret evidence and secret mailing lists are such a situation.
Deprived of the ability for people to fully examine the evidence against them, and more importantly, deprived of the ability for the community to give feedback, is just waiting for the [[User:!!|!!]] to happen again and again and again.
Private <> secret, as you have been told many times. You have no access to arbcom-l, and matters of much greater import are discussed there. Will you be demanding that arbcom-l is opened? You have no access to the admin IRC channel. Will you be demanding that? You have no access to OTRS. Will you be demanding that?
Who could have forseen that "secret courts" and "secret evidence" would inevitably lead to erroneous bans? I did.
There are no secret courts. There is no erroneous ban. !! was unblocked after 75 minutes. It was a mistake, made out of excess of zeal.
Guy, you ignored the point I made earlier. There is a difference between this and IRC or arbcom-L. The difference is that you all already believe in Bigfoot, to quote the principle NYB suggested at the RfAr. As I said, and I will reproduce it so that this time it registers, "... I rather believe that most of us are concerned that this list or another like it has been perverted from that goal towards creating an unfortunate echo chamber for those who would like to see more zealous attempts to stamp out what they think is maliciously instigated drama and disruption. "This might create the effect that individual subscribers think actions are 'approved' when they're actually unread or misunderstood, or in cultivating a climate of groupthink in which one side of the evidence is presented and people show up in on-wiki discussions in a bunch with their minds made up, thus increasing drama all round.
Do you see what I mean about groupthink and the difference from the examples you cite? And why I was personally puzzled the sudden consensus at the original PM block for example? How artificial it felt to me and other observers at the time? And that was the only one I happened to notice. If this is a mistake, it is one that will recur with unacceptably high probability.
The real problem, Alec, is that "cabal" in this case is equivalent to "group of which you are not a member".
Oh, whatever. He says BADSITES, you say "Cabal", you're both tossing out caricatures that get us nowhere. Cut it out, already.
RR
On 11/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's good to hear. Arbcom will still have to consider whether participation in a secret list where secret evidence is presented is an appropriate behavior, and of course, the arbiters who actually did participate will need to recuse themselves from voting on that issue I would hope.
I fear you are not making a lot of sense to me here.
You can't stop any editor talking to any other editor they want to about anything.
If you think you can, I invite you to detail precisely what you plan and why it's a good idea.
[[WP:CANVASS]] would be a good place to start-- if I made a mailing list to talk about on-wiki behavior, posting notices about major on-wiki happenings... if it ever got out, I would be banned before I knew what hit me.
Another would proposal woudl be that when our admins screw up, we be allowed to do a full postmortem to figure out just what went wrong and how to stop it from happening again.
Requiring all evidence to be submitted ON-WIKI for admin review (or else deferred to arbcom/office) would be another good step.
Alec
You are setting up a false contradiction. 'Collusion', in Bryan's words, might have existed off the public list, once the evidence has been presented to the entire set. Matthew specifically laid that possibility open, in fact.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:43 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam"
results
in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that
leaked.
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to
okay
anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
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 11/27/07, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, we are subject to this climate of paranoia. Nobody is comfortable when this kind of siege mentality develops. The outside opinion at the RfC that I quoted earlier demonstrates it. But I am yet to see a single acknowledgment that this stuff has gone too far.
Exactly. It sucks ALL the life out of the community. It turns us against each other. Community consensus is that this sort of siege mentality secret list police behavior has gone on long enough and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, oddly enough, we aren't having much luck convincing the actual militiamen of this, and arbcom has yet to address the issue head-on.
Alec
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, we are subject to this climate of paranoia. Nobody is comfortable when this kind of siege mentality develops. The outside opinion at the RfC that I quoted earlier demonstrates it. But I am yet to see a single acknowledgment that this stuff has gone too far.
Exactly. It sucks ALL the life out of the community. It turns us against each other.
No, I think starting with an assumption of bad faith and shouting "PROVE you weren't behaving evilly!" does much more in that direction.
Your working definition of "cabal" does in fact appear to be "group of people talking that I'm not in."
- d.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:54 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:04:50 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons, and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot.
That's *extremely* unlikely to happen, *especially* if you are using and have only ever used one account.
Not as small as the probability that a returner who goes all the way to
RfA is in fact a banned user.
Do you have any idea how many people will look like returners over the course of the years? As WP becomes an institution and people dip into it every now and then and then choose to settle down to an account once they already know their way around? This sort of paranoia is so detached from the reality of how most of us, especially the casual editors who keep this place growing, operate, that its laughable. You're designing the responses of a top 5 websites around your fears of a dozen people so inept they were kicked off Wikipedia. And most of us uninvolved in the debates earlier this year neither understand nor share this level of concern.
RR.
On Nov 27, 2007 11:26 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked. If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
One of the things that isn't included in this thread is hte email Durova sent to the list. If you haven't seen it, go read it, and you'll see why we're all so stressed out by this. There isn't a person on the encyclopedia who couldn't be banned by this sort of kangaroo court, if someone had an ax to grind. And if the discussions are secret, they'll never even know they were being suspected-- they'll just wake up banned one day, just like !!.
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.
Durova DID post the "evidence" to the list, and members of that list DID reply back to her "enthusiastically endorsing" the block. (or so she says, and I believe her).
Are you saying that Matthew and Guy are lying? I think you'll have to take a stand here, because Matthew and Guy both said that she didn't even propose a block, so how could someone "endorse" something that wasn't proposed?
Just because she didn't say the magic word "I'm gonna ban them", it was obvious where it was going.
Was it? How could you possibly know? It seems that you have made a bad faith assumption the purpose of the list is to ban WR editors, and are viewing the e-mail through that lens. However, if the purpose of the list is for Wikipedia's victims of cyberstalking to discuss their issues, then I suspect that if people read it at all, most would look at the e-mail and say "huh, well, not particularly relevant to the list, but ok."
Anyone who read hte email and responded with anything other than "Are you crazy, this is NOT sufficient evidence to prove he's a sockpuppet" needs looking at, because I think the community wouldn't trust their judgment anymore than it trusts Durova's.
Regarding a reasonable reaction to the sockpuppeting claim, as Matthew points out "She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a banned user grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other possibilities."
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:56:25 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Now as I see it. A bad block was made. Admins make bad blocks all the time. There was a private list involved but that was incidental. The block was overturned and then there was way too much drama over the matter.
A masterfully succinct and wholly accurate synopsis.
It was more than just a bad block, in the "admins make bad blocks all the time" sense. It was block based on a methodology that was, to quote a proposed arb com finding, "both unsophisticated and fundamentally flawed. The techniques used are unremarkable, well known and widely publicly discussed." The formerly secret (*) mailing list was apparently not directly involved, but it seems to have led in part to the paranoid thinking which spawned the bad block.
And I'd say the mailing list also is worthy of discussion on its own, regardless of the block. The participation of people with access to sensitive information, in a mailing list not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation and with an apparent topic of investigating people who use the Wikipedia website, seems extremely problematic.
(*) The fact that the person running the list refused to even give out it's name, and that the membership of the list still has not been revealed, leads me to believe calling it "formerly secret" is accurate. The name of the third list doesn't even appear to have yet been made public, at least not in this thread.
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists? O.K., let's assume for the moment that this bizarrely bad-faith theory is true. What on earth does it have to do with Wikipedia any more? Wikipedians privately e-mail each other hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day. What do you propose to do about that?
On Nov 27, 2007 11:35 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
You are setting up a false contradiction. 'Collusion', in Bryan's words, might have existed off the public list, once the evidence has been presented to the entire set. Matthew specifically laid that possibility open, in fact.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:43 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam"
results
in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that
leaked.
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to
okay
anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point here is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Nov 27, 2007 10:08 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, we are subject to this climate of paranoia. Nobody is comfortable when this
kind of
siege mentality develops. The outside opinion at the RfC that I quoted earlier demonstrates it. But I am yet to see a single acknowledgment
that
this stuff has gone too far.
Exactly. It sucks ALL the life out of the community. It turns us against each other.
No, I think starting with an assumption of bad faith and shouting "PROVE you weren't behaving evilly!" does much more in that direction.
Your working definition of "cabal" does in fact appear to be "group of people talking that I'm not in."
In the email that Alec was responding to, I had quoted an earlier message
in which I laid out the fact that a lack of opposing viewpoints might lead to inefficient, over-reactive and over-restrictive blocking. In that earlier message, I had gone on to say "Note that there are absolutely no assumptions of bad faith, caricatures of an opposing viewpoint or anything of the sort in the above discussion, so do try not to respond as if there are."
Congratulations on doing both, even after I suggested it. I invite you to explain the assumption of bad faith contained in that argument.
Nobody suggests anything but good faith, or expects people to prove their good intentions. We know everyone's intentions are good, just like we know to an extent how most people would carry out those good intentions.
RR
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:04:50 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
One could hope, but a lot of us are genuinely afraid that trying to write an encyclopaedia is going to get us banned for various reasons, and would like to feel safe that we're not going to wake up banned as a sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review member X or whatnot.
That's *extremely* unlikely to happen, *especially* if you are using and have only ever used one account.
Sure, it happened once. Hands up anyone who wants to try it again? Any takers? Not me, I can tell you.
Guy (JzG)
No offenve, JzG, but your reassurances aren't very reassuring. I have no idea how often something like this has happened, nor do I have any idea how likely it is to happen in the future. We're talking about a ban based on essentially no evidence, that could happen to anyone, with no hope of appeal other than "popularity". Should I believe I have enough clout to get myself unbanned if I'm banned on secret evidence I can't question or know anything about? I might be able to (one Wikipedian of some prominance knows my real life identity, and might help me out if I asked nice-like) but should we be telling more "paltry" editors that nobody cares if they get banned over nothing and nobody will help them?
It'd probably be easy enough to make a case against me as strong as the one against !! - I cited a source for my data in my very first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Local_Group&diff=prev&... Figured out immeadiately that I should sign edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Local_Group&diff=prev&... Demonstrated knowledge of redirects by edit five: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alpher-Bethe-Gamow_paper&... Demonstrated knowledge of the "Vandalism" lingo by edit 17: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrested_Development_%28TV_se... My 23rd edit shows I have some clue of what's going on, using the term "encyclopaedic" at an AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co... Heck, here I am proposing an article for deletion around edit 30: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fr...
It goes on and on. Anyone familiar with wikis and with a prediliction for reading instructions is going to look like a returning user if your evidence standards are shabby. The real trouble is ''How do get a ban undone if I cannot find out why I was banned?'' - The answer is almost certainly ''I cannot''. !! got his ban overturned because he was popular - how popular am I? Enough? I don't know ...
Dismissing the fears of (at least two members of) the community simply because you think they're overblown is not the way to create a positive working space. Overblown are not, they are a reasonable result of what's going on, and the uncertainty caused by the lack of knowledge most editors have. Every edit I've made to [[WP:NPA]], [[WT:NPA]] and [WP&WT:LINKLOVE]] has left a sinking feeling in my heart I'm going to see a blocked notice next time I log in. I'm not the only one ... if we want to create a good environment from working, we need to free productive, helpful, good faith authors and editors from the quite reasonable fear they could wake up with an uncontestable block.
Cheers WilyD
Do you have any idea how many people will look like returners over the course of the years? As WP becomes an institution and people dip into it every now and then and then choose to settle down to an account once they already know their way around? This sort of paranoia is so detached from the reality of how most of us, especially the casual editors who keep this place growing, operate, that its laughable. You're designing the responses of a top 5 websites around your fears of a dozen people so inept they were kicked off Wikipedia. And most of us uninvolved in the debates earlier this year neither understand nor share this level of concern.
This is a valid point. The vast majority of banned users would self-destruct well before they ever got anywhere near adminship. We don't need to worry too much about this. Especially given the likelyhood of false positives. I myself started editing as an IP about a month before registering an account, and I know someone else who registered an account after already having edited as an IP for about 2 months. Someone who looked at her edits might very well decide it was some sort of returning user. The damage that this sort of attitude can do if not approached carefully is much higher than the benefit.
Now, there are a variety of other techniques that can be used to find banned users and taken together with those they are often effective. However, we shouldn't simply use evidence prior experience with Wikipedia as a good reason to assume someone is a banned returning user.
On Nov 27, 2007 10:16 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding a reasonable reaction to the sockpuppeting claim, as Matthew points out "She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a banned user grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other possibilities."
Yes, of course. That's really what everyone said after the block, on the noticeboards even when the evidence was not known. The question is why nobody said that who actually saw the evidence. The expectation of some of us is because nobody thought it was that big a deal. This is not representative of the project in general. Again, an echo chamber.
RR
Colluding is not my word. It's Bryan's. The purpose of my message was to point out that Bryan's suggestion that further discussion of the block took place off-wiki was not ruled out by Guy's statement that blocking !! was not explicitly proposed on-list, only the evidence that !! was a disruptive sockpuppet.
If you re-read the above discussions, you will note that nobody really expects any controls on off-wiki discussion, which would be unenforceable. There are concerns about the on-wiki ramifications of a specific subset of such communications. So I don't suppose either Bryan or I need to respond to the rest of your message.
RR
On Nov 27, 2007 10:20 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists? O.K., let's assume for the moment that this bizarrely bad-faith theory is true. What on earth does it have to do with Wikipedia any more? Wikipedians privately e-mail each other hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day. What do you propose to do about that?
On Nov 27, 2007 11:35 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
You are setting up a false contradiction. 'Collusion', in Bryan's words, might have existed off the public list, once the evidence has been
presented
to the entire set. Matthew specifically laid that possibility open, in
fact.
On Nov 27, 2007 9:43 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam"
results
in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why
they
did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session
that
leaked.
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I
ran
this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I
can't
tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in
a
furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority
to
okay
anything.
I completely agree. I think I've even said as much. The point
here
is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin
was
just blowing smoke about having their support.
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group
of
like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens
to
have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to
meekly
and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this
attitude
and this bad process is rooted out.
Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 27/11/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, of course. That's really what everyone said after the block, on the noticeboards even when the evidence was not known. The question is why nobody said that who actually saw the evidence. The expectation of some of us is because nobody thought it was that big a deal. This is not representative of the project in general. Again, an echo chamber.
Or perhaps because in another zillion emails that day (I'm not on any list it was sent to, so am not speaking from personal knowledge) it's much easier to ignore one or think "I'll get to that later." The responsibility for action remains Durova's rather than anyone else's ... as she's said way enough times.
- d.
On Nov 27, 2007 12:02 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 10:16 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding a reasonable reaction to the sockpuppeting claim, as Matthew points out "She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a banned user grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other possibilities."
Yes, of course. That's really what everyone said after the block, on the noticeboards even when the evidence was not known. The question is why nobody said that who actually saw the evidence. The expectation of some of us is because nobody thought it was that big a deal. This is not representative of the project in general. Again, an echo chamber.
RR
I think I'm mostly going to quote Matthew from now one, because he's pretty much already said it all, in this very thread:
"Unfortunately Durova did not run this block past either list. She posted an email laying out why !! appeared to be a returned user to the cyberstalking list, which I did not read until after she did the block (the list has been quite high volume) but did not to the best of my knowledge give anyone any indication that she was going to block."
It appears that Durova said "This is a returning user", and the small number who actually read the e-mail thought "yeah, you're probably right". Why would anything more be required?
On 27/11/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
If you re-read the above discussions, you will note that nobody really expects any controls on off-wiki discussion, which would be unenforceable.
Evidently you have not been following the messages from the concerned Wikipedian who started this thread.
- d.
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists? O.K., let's assume for the moment that this bizarrely bad-faith theory is true. What on earth does it have to do with Wikipedia any more? Wikipedians privately e-mail each other hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day. What do you propose to do about that?
For starters:
I propose that they show the community and/or the full arbcom all the emails that led to the erroneous blocks, so we can see if the endorsers behavior & judgment needs to be examined as well.
That seems pretty simple, yes?
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 12:19 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists? O.K., let's assume for the moment that this bizarrely bad-faith theory is true. What on earth does it have to do with Wikipedia any more? Wikipedians privately e-mail each other hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a day. What do you propose to do about that?
For starters:
I propose that they show the community and/or the full arbcom all the emails that led to the erroneous blocks, so we can see if the endorsers behavior & judgment needs to be examined as well.
That seems pretty simple, yes?
Alec, as has been pointed out to you several times, both Matthew and Guy have stated that Durova did not ask for permission to block anyone. So, what e-mails could have possibly "led to the erroneous blocks", and how could there possibly be any "endorsers"?
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.
On a list of "people who already believe in bigfoot"-- seems to fly afoul of CANVASSing.
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.
To say that the community & arbcom have no business whatsoever in examine who those people were and what they told her.
For example-- did any of them present knowingly FALSE evidence to her? I doubt it, but a "secret list" should be used to prevent arbcom from finding out the truth.
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 "
It's really quite simple-- you ban somebody, you have to account for it. THat includes what evidence you got-- ALL of it. That includes what advice you got, ALL of it.
Now _maybe_ there's a privacy case for not giving it to the community, but there's no case whatsoever for not letting the full arbcom see all those emails. And the more people fight us on this, the more it contributes to a perception, warranted or not, that those emails have something worth hiding in them. Not just something worth hidng from me, mind you-- something worth hiding from arbcom.
Now, I personally suspect it's more generic privacy concerns and embarassment that are keeping the secrets still secret. But think about how this looks. The community is being told:
-An admin indef blocked somebody. -She won't tell you why-- at least at first. -She won't tell you what evidence she presented. -She won't tell you who she presented it to. -She'll promise you that many people have been consulted in depth and many have endorsed the block, but when pressed, she refuses to say who. -She won't tell you who her co-sleuths are. -She won't tell you what evidence her co-sleuths presented against !!
It's just not acceptable. It's a RECIPE for schism, paranoia and drama. I don't believe in a cabal, but seriously-- could you work any harder to convince our critics that Wikipedia is cabalistic?
Arbcom has a right to know every word that any administrator said leading up to the block of !!. When you get the bit, you give up your right to keep secrets from arbcom about the opinion you proffer about who should be blocked. If personal privacy is that important to you, resign and we don't have to worry about your standard for indef blocking. If you got hte bit, you gotta fess up and let arbcom review your conversations.
Given the circumstances, I think !! has right to know what falsehoods were discussed about him also, but perhaps others disagree.
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 8:35 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
You are setting up a false contradiction. 'Collusion', in Bryan's words, might have existed off the public list, once the evidence has been presented to the entire set. Matthew specifically laid that possibility open, in fact.
More accurately, no third parties can prove or deny one-to-one communications between any pair of editors or admins. I can't, you can't; only an involved party knows.
If an admin is going to make a block based on anything other than pure vandalism or something else incredibly obvious, I hope they DO talk to people about it. As much as possible. Ironically, in this case, if Durova had actually discussed this block on either of these mailing lists, it's possible someone would have dissuaded her from it.
-Matt
Alec Conroy wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts, and a huge amount of scare mongering.
I am sorry to see this kind of witch hunt taking place. :(
--Jimbo
Steve Summit wrote:
Alec wrote:
So, for anyone who doesn't know, it's now come out that there was basically a citizens "militia" of sorts that created secret mailing lists where they coordinated their actions and presented secret evidence against those suspected of being affiliated with a BADSITE... This is a LOT of drama.
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
You didn't know it because it isn't like he says.
--Jimbo
On Nov 27, 2007 8:59 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Now, there are a variety of other techniques that can be used to find banned users and taken together with those they are often effective. However, we shouldn't simply use evidence prior experience with Wikipedia as a good reason to assume someone is a banned returning user.
Indeed. The correct behavior is probably to email the user privately about your concerns and give them a chance to address them. If that doesn't work, getting a mutually trusted third party to act as an intermediary might be a good idea.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious about taking everything Alec says here at face value. He's presenting it from the maximum-drama, maximum-assumption-of-bad-faith point of view, in my opinion.
I do not want to criticize Alec or his motives. But having been a participant on the mailing list in question from day one, I can say with absolute confidence that it is not and was not in any way nefarious, and that the representations being made about it here and on-wiki are just silly.
A good group of users got together independently to talk about the very real problem of cyberstalking of Wikipedia admins. This is something that all of us should be concerned about. The problem is difficult and complex, and it is not made easier by "free speechers" who like to make the biggest wikidrama out of everything that they can.
--Jimbo
Bryan Derksen wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
*I* am involved in multiple ongoing private discussions with dozens of people. The list in question is being badly misrepresented as some kind of problem. It is a good list, and the purpose of the list is good, and not everyone on the list is perfect (as is always true).
--Jimbo
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@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.
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?
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?
To say that the community & arbcom have no business whatsoever in examine who those people were and what they told her.
Err, what?
For example-- did any of them present knowingly FALSE evidence to her? I doubt it, but a "secret list" should be used to prevent arbcom from finding out the truth.
So, you're now talking about this third list hypothesized by Relata Refero?
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.
It's really quite simple-- you ban somebody, you have to account for it. THat includes what evidence you got-- ALL of it. That includes what advice you got, ALL of it.
Now _maybe_ there's a privacy case for not giving it to the community, but there's no case whatsoever for not letting the full arbcom see all those emails. And the more people fight us on this, the more it contributes to a perception, warranted or not, that those emails have something worth hiding in them. Not just something worth hidng from me, mind you-- something worth hiding from arbcom.
What e-mails?
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.
On Nov 27, 2007 8:57 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to create a good environment from working, we need to free productive, helpful, good faith authors and editors from the quite reasonable fear they could wake up with an uncontestable block.
We do indeed. No block should be uncontestable. Some, unfortunately, will only be contestable to the arbitration committee, but that number should be as limited as possible.
-Matt
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
You are assuming ill faith to a quite unreasonable degree. So what if not all the arbitration committee were on the lists? It doesn't matter. Some are, and so is Jimbo, and when something stupid gets said we allow the person to work through their pain and frustration and come out the other side.
Precisely.
Durova did not have support for what she did. She misinterpreted silence as assent. Had she asked "should I block this editor?" I think the answer would have been no, since there was nothing to indicate a problem from Wikipedia behaviour.
Precisely.
--Jimbo
On 11/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can say with absolute confidence that it is not and was not in any way nefarious
I _hope_ I haven't either. I tried very hard to insist that users weren't TRYING to run afoul of these rules, they weren't trying to hurt anyone-- quite the contrary, they were trying to protect people. But look at the RFC--- a lot of us are more scared of the police than we are of the vandals.
The problem is difficult and complex, and it is not made easier by "free speechers" who like to make the biggest wikidrama out of everything that they can.
Well, I know it's supposed to be a negative commentary, but all the same, thank you for calling me a "free speecher"-- it's a most welcome change of pace. :)
Alec
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can say with absolute confidence that it is not and was not in any way nefarious
I _hope_ I haven't either.
No, you've just insinuated it from your first message in this thread. Please go back and read what you've been writing.
- d.
Oh? I remain to be convinced. Why, then, did Durova think it quite alright to post her evidence to !! to this list? Why do we have good people, like Krimpet, being attacked on this mailing list? Why do we have two of our finest, Thatcher131 and Alison (now a CU), signing up to this list and then rapidly unsubscribing when they find it wasn't, after all, that it was cooked up to be. In fact, Alison memorably described it as chock-full of "bitterness, anger and wikipolitics". Oh dear.
And why, then, did we think it quite alright to set up a bastard child to wpcyberstalking, wpinvestigations-1? This little list I know quite a lot about - I've seen some truly bizarre and quite terrifying conversations, including some posts that make you wonder how on earth something like the block of !! didn't happen a lot earlier. Sockpuppet paranoia, investigation obsession, weird suggestions for the CUs galore - it's got the lot, baby. In fact, Thatcher summed this wretched list up very nicely: "...unhelpful and possible dangerous development. Blocks and such should be discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose, rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper perspective."
Wikipedia is not a MMORG for SlimVirgin to play webmaster to.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:51:27 -0800 From: jwales@wikia.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious about taking everything Alec says here at face value. He's presenting it from the maximum-drama, maximum-assumption-of-bad-faith point of view, in my opinion.
I do not want to criticize Alec or his motives. But having been a participant on the mailing list in question from day one, I can say with absolute confidence that it is not and was not in any way nefarious, and that the representations being made about it here and on-wiki are just silly.
A good group of users got together independently to talk about the very real problem of cyberstalking of Wikipedia admins. This is something that all of us should be concerned about. The problem is difficult and complex, and it is not made easier by "free speechers" who like to make the biggest wikidrama out of everything that they can.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
Quoting Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
On Nov 27, 2007 8:59 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Now, there are a variety of other techniques that can be used to find banned users and taken together with those they are often effective. However, we shouldn't simply use evidence prior experience with Wikipedia as a good reason to assume someone is a banned returning user.
Indeed. The correct behavior is probably to email the user privately about your concerns and give them a chance to address them. If that doesn't work, getting a mutually trusted third party to act as an intermediary might be a good idea.
-Matt
No. While that on occasion make sense, very often additional evidence is by itself sufficient. For example, some users have certain grammatical quirks and spelling issues. For example I frequently write "payed" when the word is in fact "paid". Without going into too much detail (not wanting to give banned users too much info here) such signs when used with other evidence can be very definitive. In such cases a sanity check from another admin might be a good thing, but very often there's no need to email the user.
On Nov 27, 2007 10:38 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
No. While that on occasion make sense, very often additional evidence is by itself sufficient. For example, some users have certain grammatical quirks and spelling issues. For example I frequently write "payed" when the word is in fact "paid". Without going into too much detail (not wanting to give banned users too much info here) such signs when used with other evidence can be very definitive. In such cases a sanity check from another admin might be a good thing, but very often there's no need to email the user.
I was meaning in the case, such as this, where there is nothing definitive tying someone to a specific banned user but one has suspicions.
-Matt
With due respect to everyone posting here, the facts are well laid out in the Evidence section of the RFAR, and very few of them are in dispute.
Jimmy, the reason people are up in arms right now is not that Durova screwed up, it is that ANY admin in this project could have considered any of this to be acceptable. When I wrote the other day that I thought long and hard about deleting unsourced, clearly erroneous, speculative, and potentially damaging information in a biographical article about a professional wrestler, I was serious. Very serious.
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova is the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable. And it is this systemic issue that is causing the continued churning of this issue. Durova is not the problem. It is the culture that nurtured her belief that this level of sleuthing was beneficial to the project. The community is trying to find ways to make it clear that this is not acceptable to them.
Dozens of well respected editors have edited in the past and in some cases continue to edit with alternate accounts. If we turned every admin into a checkuser tomorrow, it still wouldn't be sufficient to root out every alternate account on Wikipedia. So it is time to get back to basics here. It is the quality of the information contained in the encyclopedia that is of importance, not the identity of the editor who wrote any particular passage or article. That's what it says on the front page.
Risker
On 11/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
I'm always the last person to hear about these things.
And you got the facts all wrong.
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 Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova is the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
And it is this systemic issue that is causing the continued churning of this issue. Durova is not the problem. It is the culture that nurtured her belief that this level of sleuthing was beneficial to the project.
Your claiming there is a "systemic issue" or "culture that nurtured her belief" doesn't make it so.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And to be absolutely clear here, if I were to block someone on the basis of information I could not easily share it would only be *after* running it by the arbitrators. I already emailed details of at least one block to arbcom-l. That still does not make it anyone's call but my own.
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process. From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of admin actions such as blocking. Running things by the Arbcom *before* taking administrative action means that any appeals will be against a stacked deck.
We should not neglect here the obvious interpretation: that Durova simply screwed up. Some of us have been somewhat taken aback, and may have learned something from it. But ultimately it was Durova's call and she has taken a real beating for it. The same has happened with blocks resulting from misjudgment of conversations on IRC, I seem to recall. I used to be very anti-IRC until I tried it.
Durova is not the problem. (Nor was Slim Virgin in an earlier drama.) By all appearances she has accepted responsibility for her actions, has been desysopped for her role, and in time (like anyone else who has been blocked or otherwise punished) can redeem herself. To someone who has followed this list with any degree of regularity it is easy to see which Queen has been a consistent actor in these dramas.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a private discussion could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment. If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there would be no effective difference.
Private discussions alone are not the problem. We all engage in them at some level. Discussing harassment is not the problem; using those discussions in a conspiracy to harass someone that that private group doesn't like is.
Ec
On Nov 27, 2007 10:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy, the reason people are up in arms right now is not that Durova screwed up, it is that ANY admin in this project could have considered any of this to be acceptable.
Do any? I haven't heard ANYONE defend Durova's block.
Dozens of well respected editors have edited in the past and in some cases continue to edit with alternate accounts.
Sometimes unwisely. Editing with multiple accounts gives you the daily temptation to push things a little too far, IMO, and that is why I do not do it and would recommend that people not do it.
-Matt
On 27/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process. From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of admin actions such as blocking.
Not really. In the early days there were far less complex ways to appeal and admins tended not to ban.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay anything
No, they don't. Administrators are individually responsible for each and every administrative action they take. But I don't see how that is contradicted by what happened here: Durova was responsible for the block of !!, and she has been held to account for it. Precisely no-one appears to be arguing that Durova's responsibility is diminished because she ran it by a select group before taking action; even if that group had all supported the proposed action, it would still have been the responsibility of whoever performed the block.
Sure, an admin is responble for his or her actions, but I don't agree with making Durova a scapegoat for a much bigger problem.
Ec
On Nov 27, 2007 2:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process. From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of admin actions such as blocking.
Not really. In the early days there were far less complex ways to appeal and admins tended not to ban.
Good point, arbcom was more set up to enact bans than as a body to hear appeals of blocks. Admins not only "tended not to ban", they weren't allowed to ban. Back then a ban could only be imposed by Jimbo or arb com. Admins could *block* logged in users (this in itself was a somewhat new ability), but they couldn't *ban*.
Arbcom had nothing to do with "appeals" in the beginning.
Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own personal reasons not to edit with the account everyone knows you by for some time. What those reasons are, I have no idea and no right or interest in knowing. For all intents and purposes, you have exercised your right to vanish. That is to be respected. But just for the sake of this example, let's say you exercised that right to vanish because you felt there was some risk to your personal security if you were to continue editing as "jayjg."
But you still have an abiding faith in the project, and wish to continue participating. So you create a new account and continue to write your usual level of fine contributions. You clean up articles. You participate in some higher level projects, like FA or DYK. You participate in discussions on ANI or some policy or other, you help a new user, you use wikification and edit summaries accurately, and know how to make templates. You make an occasional humorous or snide remark on some talk page. You tell a few close associates of your new identity, entrusting them with this information and asking them to keep it close to their vests because of your security concerns. Nobody raises any concerns about the quality of your work in any forum. In other words, you behave as a highly motivated, positive, and valuable contributor to the project. There is absolutely no logical reason for anyone to have concerns about your participation. It is a sad truth that to some people in administrative roles on wikipedia, that you would look exactly like a sleeper sock being built up for adminship. Jayjg, even you are not immune to being mistakenly identified in this way.
Risker
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
And it is this systemic issue that is causing the continued churning of this issue. Durova is not the problem. It is the culture that nurtured her belief that this level of sleuthing was
beneficial
to the project.
Your claiming there is a "systemic issue" or "culture that nurtured her belief" doesn't make it so.
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 Nov 27, 2007 11:10 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Discussing harassment is not the problem; using those discussions in a conspiracy to harass someone that that private group doesn't like is.
Disclaimer: at one point I was on the cyberstalking-l list, but am not at the moment for reasons completely unrelated to the current blowup.
I don't know how a private discussion list can cause harassment of someone that a group doesn't like. Even assuming that hostile harassment happens somewhere (and, though there was a lot of venting about real and percieved harassers, I don't think that cyberstalking-l did that), if the harassee is not present then they aren't being subjected to anything.
The list could be used to coordinate some sort of campaign of abuse elsewhere. That clearly did not happen while I was on the list.
It could also be used to discuss investigations into and responses to abusive wikipedians, such as harrassers and trolls, leading to administrative actions elsewhere. But the list is not an administrative venue or announcement venue related to those actions, any more so than IRC or private emails between wikipedians of any sort. Any actions taken have to have the usual announcements in the usual places, with the usual standards of evidence etc.
This list was private because it's a sensitive and volatile subject, not just for Wikipedia but for all online communities. The community as a whole DOES NOT have a right to view all private discussions related in any way to Wikipedia. We understand and acknowledge that with private emails, private IRC messages, and other mailing lists such as arbcom-l and unblock-en-l and so forth. This list is no different.
It's reasonable for people to want assurances that the list was not being used to orchestrate a campaign of unfair or process/policy violating abuse against percieved enemies. It was not in the time I was on it.
It's reasonable for people to want assurances that there has been some form of adult supervision on a list where sensitive and volatile issues and responses were discussed. Jimmy and several arbcom members, as well as other senior respected community members, were active in the list while I was. Sanity checks were performed regularly.
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@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
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
By cooincidence-- that's exactly the question we've been trying to get Durova to answer! :)
On Nov 27, 2007 2:46 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@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.
[personall attack snipped] 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.
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.'
Who believes that?
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.
Of course that isn't the only way to reconcile those statements. I can think of at least four other ways of reconciling them.
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 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.
Can I assume, then, that you take responsibility for and support all content on wikien-l that you don't explicitly object to?
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.
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?
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
The point is that it's impossible to name them because their identity is being kept a secret; they have been referred to only as "trusted people". This is why such a fuss is being kicked up - by Durova's own statements, some "trusted people" that she consulted "enthusiastically endorsed" the !! block.
Durova should not be allowed to be the scapegoat in this. She made a mistake which, when she realised it, she immediately corrected and apologised, and then resigned her Adminship. These are worthy actions and, if her re-application for Adminship were being made now, I would unhesitatingly support it.
However, there are other "trusted people" who endorsed the mistake -- and they're staying silent as to their identity, allowing Durova to take the fall for them. This is totally unacceptable. I call upon all those who endorsed Durova's block to admit it and test the community's faith in them.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:49 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
By cooincidence-- that's exactly the question we've been trying to get Durova to answer! :)
No, Alec, you keep asking for the names of the people on the cyberstalking list who approved of a block that Durova apparently never asked for approval for in the first place. Risker, on the other hand, has claimed that admins in this very thread believe that "a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour."
On Nov 27, 2007 3:11 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
The point is that it's impossible to name them because their identity is being kept a secret; they have been referred to only as "trusted people".
No, Risker stated "there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable." Posting in this thread, not elsewhere. Risker must know who he meant when he said that.
On a related note, looks like my little list somehow wound up on WR. Didn't leak, not my fault. Whoever did might have consulted me first...
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14172
Now, all raise a glass to the virtues of transparency! Secret mailing lists devoted to "private investigations" and "confidential evidence" are a bad thing - and with a secret mailing list - thank heaven the clouds of darkness are blown away! But please don't blame me...
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:11:17 +0000 From: james.farrar@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
The point is that it's impossible to name them because their identity is being kept a secret; they have been referred to only as "trusted people". This is why such a fuss is being kicked up - by Durova's own statements, some "trusted people" that she consulted "enthusiastically endorsed" the !! block.
Durova should not be allowed to be the scapegoat in this. She made a mistake which, when she realised it, she immediately corrected and apologised, and then resigned her Adminship. These are worthy actions and, if her re-application for Adminship were being made now, I would unhesitatingly support it.
However, there are other "trusted people" who endorsed the mistake -- and they're staying silent as to their identity, allowing Durova to take the fall for them. This is totally unacceptable. I call upon all those who endorsed Durova's block to admit it and test the community's faith in them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ 100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music https://www.musicmashup.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
That's good to hear. Arbcom will still have to consider whether participation in a secret list where secret evidence is presented is an appropriate behavior, and of course, the arbiters who actually did participate will need to recuse themselves from voting on that issue I would hope.
I fear you are not making a lot of sense to me here.
You can't stop any editor talking to any other editor they want to about anything.
If you think you can, I invite you to detail precisely what you plan and why it's a good idea.
- d.
By the way, give me a call at my s00per-sekrit telephone number and let's plot our next atrocity.
- -- Sean Barrett | I have often been accused... of deliberately sean@epoptic.com | appealing to the salacious and evil-minded. | [... But t]en million Americans can't all be | salacious and evil-minded. --Mae West, 1929
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Jay, I think you're a tad late to the discussion somehow. Go read Durova's Evidence. She clearly accuses !! of being a "ripened sock" , a "troublemaker", and a "troll", and working with a "team" of other users.
It's fine to assume that many people who recieved the email did not read it. It's not plausible to assume anyone who did read it came away thinking Durova did not intend to block (or request a block) of !!. That is a patently absurd claim.
Futhermore, we KNOW some people did get the message that a block was coming because they discussed it "in depth" and "enthusiastically" endorsed the block. Are you accusing Durova of lying about this? Are you somehow implying she fabricated the story? Of course you're not-- so let's dispense with the "Maybe nobody even knew she was contemplating a block" red herring-- it's beneath us all.
This isn't about individuals, its about processes.
why then are people like Alec insisting that they must known the names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking?
Because we need to rebut the claim that Durova essentially went rogue and just did this on her own, as people are trying to claim. Durova's being scapegoated as a "lone gunman" who "acted alone" in order to prevent other members of her group being exposed to the light. If this succeeds, we will have changed nothing-- we won't have stopped the militia-esque, we won't have stopped the people who are distressed by those practicies-- we'll just have stripped a good admin of her rank, and hte problem will persist.
Unless Durova's a liar, there are roughly five people who had "in depth" involvement-- and their judgement is just as flawed as Durova's was.
The community feedback that was prompted by Durova's judgement lapse led to her resigning as an admin. Other admins may fare differently, but the community has a right to have that conversation.
If anyone is every going to trust ANY of the admins who are suspected of involvment with this, the few people who were involved need to stand up and let the community can discuss what needs to be done. Hiding behing a magic cloak of anonymity and secrecy is not an option if this encyclopedia is to have any sort of integrity.
Alec
On Nov 28, 2007 1:34 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 2:46 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg < jayjg99@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
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 or 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 obvious interpretation.
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.
RR
On Nov 27, 2007 4:31 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:34 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Yes. And more importantly, it will help cut through some of the vague hand-waving rhetoric.
Try and resolve the problem, Jay.
I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any specifics. I'm asking for specifics.
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.
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
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?
Well, again, let's do a little thought experiment. If what I've read is correct, there are apparently over two dozen people on the list. They undoubtedly are of all different ages and nationalities and ethnicities, have different political, religious views, life experiences etc. than Durova. Hmm, so would they have different perspectives than Durova or not?
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?
The list was set up to deal with cyberstalking; it seems extremely unlikely to me that everyone on the list has been cyberstalked by the same individuals, or had the same experiences when they were stalked.
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?
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event, there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
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.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes". Imaginary processes don't need fixing.
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any specifics. I'm asking for specifics.
So are we but members of a certain mailing list appear to be stonewalling.
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Well, again, let's do a little thought experiment. If what I've read is correct, there are apparently over two dozen people on the list. They undoubtedly are of all different ages and nationalities and ethnicities, have different political, religious views, life experiences etc. than Durova. Hmm, so would they have different perspectives than Durova or not?
There are degrees of difference.
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event, there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
That would depend on your system of morality.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes". Imaginary processes don't need fixing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Relata Refero wrote:
I personally don't intend to follow the links back and try and analyse times of votes and blocks and who agreed with what and other such nonsense. But I dare say someone might. It might be obvious, or it might not. I would have thought that it would be best if the obsessive weren't given further reason to obsess.
Yes, few of us have the stomach to waste so much time going through all that tedium.
What we are left with is the tone with which each person presents his views.
Ec
On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is mistaken."
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event, there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
That would depend on your system of morality.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any meaningful sense of the term. On the other hand, insisting that we must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes". Imaginary processes don't need fixing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?
The clue is when a new user who looks like a returner making use of previously acquired operating knowledge starts making dubiously productive edits, and doesnt respond to a question about whether and under what ID he has previously edited. Nobody does that with honest intentions.
On 11/27/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Do you have any idea how many people will look like returners over the course of the years? As WP becomes an institution and people dip into it every now and then and then choose to settle down to an account once they already know their way around? This sort of paranoia is so detached from the reality of how most of us, especially the casual editors who keep this place growing, operate, that its laughable. You're designing the responses of a top 5 websites around your fears of a dozen people so inept they were kicked off Wikipedia. And most of us uninvolved in the debates earlier this year neither understand nor share this level of concern.
This is a valid point. The vast majority of banned users would self-destruct well before they ever got anywhere near adminship. We don't need to worry too much about this. Especially given the likelyhood of false positives. I myself started editing as an IP about a month before registering an account, and I know someone else who registered an account after already having edited as an IP for about 2 months. Someone who looked at her edits might very well decide it was some sort of returning user. The damage that this sort of attitude can do if not approached carefully is much higher than the benefit.
Now, there are a variety of other techniques that can be used to find banned users and taken together with those they are often effective. However, we shouldn't simply use evidence prior experience with Wikipedia as a good reason to assume someone is a banned returning user.
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 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is mistaken."
When someone says that A and B's statements contradict each other. That is a matter for A and B to provide an explanation for. Further speculation is pointless.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Yeah the Enron non executive directors tried that argument. Legally correct but as I said it depends on your moral system.
On the other hand, insisting that we must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
We don't need any more hypotheticals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?
Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no? Since we are getting into a who knew what when game it also places a hard limit on how far people can claim plausible deniability.
On Nov 27, 2007 5:54 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is mistaken."
When someone says that A and B's statements contradict each other. That is a matter for A and B to provide an explanation for. Further speculation is pointless.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Yeah the Enron non executive directors tried that argument. Legally correct but as I said it depends on your moral system.
Jeez, now it's an Enron situation? Fine, geni, name the "moral system" in which failing to read one of hundreds of e-mails sent to various mailing lists is a "moral failure".
On the other hand, insisting that we must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
We don't need any more hypotheticals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?
Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no?
Whoops, weren't you the guy who in this very e-mail said "speculation is pointless" and "we don't need any more hypotheticals"? Take your own advice, please.
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Jeez, now it's an Enron situation? Fine, geni, name the "moral system" in which failing to read one of hundreds of e-mails sent to various mailing lists is a "moral failure".
Collective responsibility. Popular among certain religious groups.
It has been argued that Asimov's first law of robotics is a useful moral principle in which case the person would fail the through inaction part.
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?
Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no?
Whoops, weren't you the guy who in this very e-mail said "speculation is pointless" and "we don't need any more hypotheticals"? Take your own advice, please.
The time of that comment is not speculation. Neither is it's wording.
At the moment there would appear to be those who want to find out what happened and those who don't. While you are free to join the latter group actively attempting to oppose those trying to find out what happened is unhelpful.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:54 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the
people
who have commented might have said something in error? That they
might
believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong?
GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is *incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is mistaken."
When someone says that A and B's statements contradict each other. That is a matter for A and B to provide an explanation for. Further speculation is pointless.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a "moral failing" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Yeah the Enron non executive directors tried that argument. Legally correct but as I said it depends on your moral system.
On the other hand, insisting that we must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
We don't need any more hypotheticals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was referring to?
Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no? Since we are getting into a who knew what when game it also places a hard limit on how far people can claim plausible deniability.
-- geni
This is getting into a corner where AGF has failed. That seems a remarkably bad thing to do.
Geni, I respect you and the others who are concerned about this. But there is a big difference between asking about inconsistencies to try and get to the underlying truth, and assuming bad faith about people who have clearly established in the past that they were among the best and brightest and most dedicated on the project.
This project cannot continue to operate on an effective zero-tolerance for admin screwup basis. The people who are holding it all together (all of us) are human, make mistakes, and will eventually make whoppers.
On Nov 27, 2007 3:28 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment there would appear to be those who want to find out what happened and those who don't. While you are free to join the latter group actively attempting to oppose those trying to find out what happened is unhelpful.
Right there you have pretty much defined the boundaries of a full-on witch hunt.
Do you really want to be doing that?
Do you really believe that those assuming good faith are trying to cover up what happened?
On 27/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This project cannot continue to operate on an effective zero-tolerance for admin screwup basis. The people who are holding it all together (all of us) are human, make mistakes, and will eventually make whoppers.
The project has quite a high level of tolerance for admin screwups. Admitting them less so but even then most stuff is forgiven.
On 27/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 3:28 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: Right there you have pretty much defined the boundaries of a full-on witch hunt.
Not remotely. You are free to make no attempt to find out what happened.
Do you really want to be doing that?
Do you really believe that those assuming good faith are trying to cover up what happened?
I never suggested that. Even those attempting to stifle questions are probably acting in good faith. They are still wrong in their approach mind.
You see back when this started the debate was over if it was acceptable to refuse to answer to anyone below arbcom. Hanging Durova out to dry does not answer this question.
You see some oldtimers may remember some stuff about answering to the community. Obviously dead and buried. For a while it looked like admins might at least have to answer to other admins. If we are to abandon that? Who then should we answer to? Arbcom only? Closed mailing lists? To actively oppose investigation means that you are moving towards the position of answering to no one.
On Nov 27, 2007 3:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This project cannot continue to operate on an effective zero-tolerance
for
admin screwup basis. The people who are holding it all together (all of
us)
are human, make mistakes, and will eventually make whoppers.
The project has quite a high level of tolerance for admin screwups. Admitting them less so but even then most stuff is forgiven.
Durova quite rapidly admitted the screwup in this case, and I don't see anyone defending the original action as correct.
Given that this is the case, why are you acting like there must have been some sort of evil back-channel conspiracy to be rooted out and destroyed?
Yes, clearly there's a disagreement between statements made about the nature of the back channel communications that did happen. Given the nature of the mistake, it's reasonable for you and others to inquire further to try and clarify and understand how that communications disagreement happened, and whether anyone is trying to lie about things or if it was just a misunderstanding or oversight.
The thread has not proceeded along the lines of a skeptical but good faith inquiry. If you want to reduce the rhetoric and continue to pursue the matter along those lines you have my support, and I suspect given Durova's other commentary will have cooperation on that front as well.
We can find out what happened without dragging anyone in the mud. We should find out what happened. We should not drag anyone through the mud.
On Nov 27, 2007 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
You see some oldtimers may remember some stuff about answering to the community. Obviously dead and buried. For a while it looked like admins might at least have to answer to other admins. If we are to abandon that? Who then should we answer to? Arbcom only? Closed mailing lists? To actively oppose investigation means that you are moving towards the position of answering to no one.
Nobody is actively opposing investigation.
That you are posing the question in those terms indicates the witch hunt mentality I refer to.
Finding out what happened (a worthy goal) does not justify the drama, insults, and gross lack of good faith which have been hurled around on wiki and on the mailing list by many. Your individual contributions have had a lack of assumption of good faith (I think) but not the rest... - but you're cheerleading the rest on.
On 28/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Durova quite rapidly admitted the screwup in this case, and I don't see anyone defending the original action as correct.
Given that this is the case, why are you acting like there must have been some sort of evil back-channel conspiracy to be rooted out and destroyed?
Because there was support for avoiding answering to the community.
Yes, clearly there's a disagreement between statements made about the nature of the back channel communications that did happen. Given the nature of the mistake, it's reasonable for you and others to inquire further to try and clarify and understand how that communications disagreement happened, and whether anyone is trying to lie about things or if it was just a misunderstanding or oversight.
The thread has not proceeded along the lines of a skeptical but good faith inquiry. If you want to reduce the rhetoric and continue to pursue the matter along those lines you have my support, and I suspect given Durova's other commentary will have cooperation on that front as well.
We can find out what happened without dragging anyone in the mud. We should find out what happened. We should not drag anyone through the mud.
A little late. I understand the mass Durova mud dragging has already taken place (well the formal arbcom bit is still ongoing but other than that).
On 28/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody is actively opposing investigation.
That you are posing the question in those terms indicates the witch hunt mentality I refer to.
Of course I could now respond that you are failing to assume good faith. Not getting us anywhere is it?
On Nov 27, 2007 4:20 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody is actively opposing investigation.
That you are posing the question in those terms indicates the witch hunt mentality I refer to.
Of course I could now respond that you are failing to assume good faith. Not getting us anywhere is it?
You've stated that people are opposing an investigation.
Nobody is doing that.
jayjg wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
I don't see how naming people will do anything to solve the problem. Personalizing only diverts attention toward the named people when it should be dealing with the systemic issues.
Ec
jayjg wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists?
I don't know whether "collusion" was a bad word choice or not, but I was only referring to the private mailing lists that Durova mentioned sending her evidence regarding !! and the supportive response she said she got.
Personally, if it had only reached this point and gone no farther, I don't see a big problem. Private communication among Wikipedia users is allowed, supported by functions built right into MediaWiki, and couldn't be controlled in any event. Nobody would have known or cared. 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.
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.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0700, Bryan Derksen
If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude and this bad process is rooted out.
Ha! You want to see the "WTF????" messages that went round afterwards. I mean, we like Durova and are doing our best to help her get over this, but really, we have been pretty blunt with her.
Yes, that actually would be quite reassuring. The lack of information about what's going on over there has IMO been the main force driving this controversy beyond the one particular action Durova took.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:11:17 +0000, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Durova should not be allowed to be the scapegoat in this. She made a mistake which, when she realised it, she immediately corrected and apologised, and then resigned her Adminship. These are worthy actions and, if her re-application for Adminship were being made now, I would unhesitatingly support it.
Correct., And that is, in fact, the entire extent of the matter. The various other accusations that this was some kind of secret cabal vote for banning have been denied by numerous individuals on the list; some people choose not to believe that and to believe instead some cockamamie conspiracy theory. We can't fix that, sorry.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:18:23 +0000, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Secret mailing lists devoted to "private investigations" and "confidential evidence" are a bad thing
Private <> secret.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:04:27 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That and an outright refusal to believe anything else other than ill intent, however many times this contradicted or by whom.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:12:32 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Evidently you have not been following the messages from the concerned Wikipedian who started this thread.
I think all we're short here is mention of the Nazis and we're done.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:19:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that they show the community and/or the full arbcom all the emails that led to the erroneous blocks, so we can see if the endorsers behavior & judgment needs to be examined as well.
There was only one email, the arbitrators already have it, and members of the arbitration committee - including Jimbo - had it beforehand. What they didn't have (because it does not exist) is any kind of prior warning that Durova was intending to act on her suspicions.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:00:49 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
I personally don't intend to follow the links back and try and analyse times of votes and blocks and who agreed with what and other such nonsense. But I dare say someone might. It might be obvious, or it might not. I would have thought that it would be best if the obsessive weren't given further reason to obsess.
They don't need any reason, they never did.
There are no secret courts. There is no erroneous ban. !! was unblocked after 75 minutes. It was a mistake, made out of excess of zeal.
Guy, you ignored the point I made earlier. There is a difference between this and IRC or arbcom-L. The difference is that you all already believe in Bigfoot, to quote the principle NYB suggested at the RfAr.
No, what we believe in is the stalking of Wikipedians - particularly those admins involved in banning certain users. We have very good evidence for this.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories or Bigfoot. I especially do not believe in conspiracy theories where I am supposed to be one of the conspirators. I am thinking of renaming the list grassy-knoll-l out of irony.
I do believe in ban-evading abusers of Wikipedia because I have blocked more of their sockpuppets than I can count.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:59:26 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
The vast majority of banned users would self-destruct well before they ever got anywhere near adminship. We don't need to worry too much about this.
I wish I could share your confidence, but this is certainly my hope.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:35:23 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The clue is when a new user who looks like a returner making use of previously acquired operating knowledge starts making dubiously productive edits, and doesnt respond to a question about whether and under what ID he has previously edited. Nobody does that with honest intentions.
They do, actually. Well, more or less honest anyway. Just not very often. Users returning after an expired ban and genuinely wanting to start afresh, for example.
In such cases I think it would be reasonable to ask them to email the arbitrators their original account identity.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:49:07 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It was more than just a bad block, in the "admins make bad blocks all the time" sense. It was block based on a methodology that was, to quote a proposed arb com finding, "both unsophisticated and fundamentally flawed.
Yes, it was bad judgment of biblical proportions, but no more than that.
Hands up anyone here who has never made a really /really/ stupid mistake at least once?
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process. From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of admin actions such as blocking. Running things by the Arbcom *before* taking administrative action means that any appeals will be against a stacked deck.
This is the most intelligent comment made by anyone thusfar in this thread.
—C.W.
On Nov 27, 2007 7:55 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for your own [long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
I don't see how naming people will do anything to solve the problem.
Risker made a false claim. I called him on it. He won't name people because no admins in this thread stated that a "pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." End of story.
Personalizing only diverts attention toward the named people when it should be dealing with the systemic issues.
Claiming there are "systemic issues" only diverts attention from the actual facts of the incident.
On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
So now, in addition to the two aforementioned lists, there's some other set of people "colluding" privately off-wiki to take action based on e-mails to the lists?
I don't know whether "collusion" was a bad word choice or not, but I was only referring to the private mailing lists that Durova mentioned sending her evidence regarding !! and the supportive response she said she got.
Well, members of the lists that are hosted by Wikia have stated that Durova never asked for approval for a block there, so the only thing left would be some non-Wikia list, of which I am sure there are very,very many, and about which Wikipedians have no jurisdiction, and can do absolutely nothing.
Personally, if it had only reached this point and gone no farther, I don't see a big problem. Private communication among Wikipedia users is allowed, supported by functions built right into MediaWiki, and couldn't be controlled in any event. Nobody would have known or cared.
Exactly.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah, ya really have to defer to the foundation lawyers on these kinds of things. If they've said copyright means it can't go up, that's the answer.
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would ever need to like to a site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links. )
Alec
On 11/27/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how a private discussion list can cause harassment of someone that a group doesn't like. Even assuming that hostile harassment happens somewhere [...], if the harassee is not present then they aren't being subjected to anything.
What you don't know won't hurt you. Unless it is disseminated (as most things are, in the long term), or worse, blindly acted upon (as too many things are, in the short term).
Sanity checks were performed regularly.
Psychiatry for Dummies, anyone?[1]. Sanity checks are a funny thing. Sometimes diagnosis creates more problems than the suspected condition ever would.
—C.W.
[1] http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/1797/shirley.htm?200728
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So? Unless you assume that the purpose of the cyberstalking list is to block users...
I think we can establish that at least one member of the list believed that to be the list's purpose. If that was a misunderstanding, it would hardly be the only one.
Overall the list is probably "whatever you make of it", i.e. serving a variety of different purposes to different people.
—C.W.
On 11/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Durova should not be allowed to be the scapegoat in this. She made a mistake which, when she realised it, she immediately corrected and apologised, and then resigned her Adminship. These are worthy actions and, if her re-application for Adminship were being made now, I would unhesitatingly support it.
I was surprised to see that happen. In fact I feel sorry for her in a way. If this was the lesser of two or more evils for her, I have to wonder what the other options really were.
However, there are other "trusted people" who endorsed the mistake -- and they're staying silent as to their identity, allowing Durova to take the fall for them. This is totally unacceptable. I call upon all those who endorsed Durova's block to admit it and test the community's faith in them.
If such people do exist, does Durova believe she has anything left to lose by naming them... or, if they don't exist, does Durova believe she has anything left to lose by making it clear that there were actually no endorsers on the grassy knoll...
Maybe she's already done one of these two things and I missed it.
—C.W.
On 11/28/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
However, there are other "trusted people" who endorsed the mistake -- and they're staying silent as to their identity, allowing Durova to take the fall for them. This is totally unacceptable. I call upon all those who endorsed Durova's block to admit it and test the community's faith in them.
If such people do exist, does Durova believe she has anything left to lose by naming them... or, if they don't exist, does Durova believe she has anything left to lose by making it clear that there were actually no endorsers on the grassy knoll...
Maybe she's already done one of these two things and I missed it.
Durova has never claimed that anyone else endorsed her decision to block. What she said was that there were others who had seen the evidence. I do not know on what basis it is said that anyone else endorsed the block because I have seen no reason to suppose that this ever happened.
on 11/28/07 10:59 AM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how a private discussion list can cause harassment of someone that a group doesn't like. Even assuming that hostile harassment happens somewhere [...], if the harassee is not present then they aren't being subjected to anything.
What you don't know won't hurt you. Unless it is disseminated (as most things are, in the long term), or worse, blindly acted upon (as too many things are, in the short term).
Sanity checks were performed regularly.
Psychiatry for Dummies, anyone?[1]. Sanity checks are a funny thing. Sometimes diagnosis creates more problems than the suspected condition ever would.
You're exactly right, CW. Some people take a diagnosis as being a personal attack. What it really is, is we psychs' version of the "inconvenient truth".
Marc
jayjg wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.
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.
Durova is perfectly capable of posting the email to Wikipedia herself, everything else aside.
On Nov 28, 2007 10:33 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Yeah, ya really have to defer to the foundation lawyers on these kinds of things. If they've said copyright means it can't go up, that's the answer.
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would ever need to like to a site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links. )
What specific value did the contents of that e-mail add to this discussion?
Sorry to disappoint you jayjg, I just recognize that bothering to respond to your demands for proof would be an abject lesson in feeding the trolls. I'm not specifically referring to you, but we both know that any diffs or quotes I stick in here would be on Wikipedia Review in no time, and I have no interest in trying to persuade people who do not participate in building the encyclopedia that there are opportunities for improvement. They want to trash people, let them develop their own evidence; I'm not a big fan of lulz.
What time I have in my life for Wikipedia is much more effectively spent on the encyclopedia itself, rather than having off-wiki debates that rapidly spiral into irrelevancy. There have been some useful and interesting points of view in this thread, and I'd be happy to continue discussing them on-wiki with people. If someone wants to email me, please let me know on my talk page, because my wiki-email comes to the same account as this list and I go days without checking it.
Risker
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 7:55 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker wrote:
The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block
of a
possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is
a
systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that
Durova is
the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to
be
administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions
are
perfectly acceptable.
Name them please.
On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker wrote: Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation. You have elected for
your own
[long hypothetical story snipped]
Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." Name them please.
I don't see how naming people will do anything to solve the problem.
Risker made a false claim. I called him on it. He won't name people because no admins in this thread stated that a "pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour." End of story.
Personalizing only diverts attention toward the named people when it should be dealing with the systemic issues.
Claiming there are "systemic issues" only diverts attention from the actual facts of the incident.
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 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 10:33 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would ever need to like to a site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links. )
What specific value did the contents of that e-mail add to this discussion?
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack thereof) without actually seeing the evidence. She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take. This necessitates the existence of linking to some other forum which provides the email, so the community can see her "evidence" and judge for ourselves.
I think it's regrettable that Durova and the Foundation have made decision that, in this particularly instance, turned Wikitruth into an actual useful forum for for arriving at the truth. Wikipedia should have been be the place people could turn to in order to get this information.
(that said, it's not to imply bad faith on the part of Durova or the Foundations lawyers. It's natural durova wouldn't want her embarassing evidence reprinted, it's naturate the lawyers would be want to minimize liability-- however unlikely. But the net result of it all is that, on this specific instance, Wikitruth is where you have to go if you want to read the truth about why !! was banned-- and I think that's a bad thing for the project, because it leads to the believe that those sites are truthful in general)
Alec
On 28/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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.
I asked Mike Godwin about this, he concurred and there's a note on [[User talk:Bastique]] accurately quoting him.
- d.
On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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?
On Nov 28, 2007 1:22 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 10:33 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would ever need to like to a site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links. )
What specific value did the contents of that e-mail add to this discussion?
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack thereof) without actually seeing the evidence.
Who made you her judge and jury? The action has resulted in an ArbCom case, the ArbCom is assessing it. If you want, feel free to run for ArbCom in the current elections.
She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take.
Has she? I wasn't aware of that.
This necessitates the existence of linking to some other forum which provides the email, so the community can see her "evidence" and judge for ourselves.
You know, I understand the impulse people have to gawk at accidents they pass by on the highway, but it's rare that they justify their actions as "necessity".
jayjg schreef:
On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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?
Because the email contained her reasons for blocking a user. These reasons should have been stated iin public when she blocked !!, not on a private list. After all, administrators only can keep the trust of the general Wikipedia population by being as transparant as possible.
I guess that there is an exception when the evidence would invade someone's privacy, but there seems to be no personal information in the mail as quoted at Wikitruth, even though apparently the identity of !! is now known. ("He was a Featured Articles writer and wrote goodness knows how many excellent articles", according to wikipediareview.)
Eugene
On Nov 28, 2007 1:55 PM, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
jayjg schreef:
On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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?
Because the email contained her reasons for blocking a user. These reasons should have been stated iin public when she blocked !!, not on a private list. After all, administrators only can keep the trust of the general Wikipedia population by being as transparant as possible.
If an admin refuses to publicly reveal the reasons for blocking someone, one alternative is to reveal them to the Arbitration Committee, which she did. In fact, she is now the subject of an ArbCom case. And her personal correspondence is not identical with her reasons for blocking someone; she could have given her reasons without revealing the e-mail, and for all we know the e-mail doesn't accurately capture her reasons for the block. You have neither the right nor the need to demand that someone reveal their personal correspondence to you.
On 28/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If an admin refuses to publicly reveal the reasons for blocking someone, one alternative is to reveal them to the Arbitration Committee, which she did.
Can you show that there is community consensus in support of this power grab?
On Nov 28, 2007 2:37 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If an admin refuses to publicly reveal the reasons for blocking someone, one alternative is to reveal them to the Arbitration Committee, which she did.
Can you show that there is community consensus in support of this power grab?
First you show me that there is community consensus in support of your endless cryptic non-sequiturs.
On 28/11/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If an admin refuses to publicly reveal the reasons for blocking someone, one alternative is to reveal them to the Arbitration Committee, which she did.
Can you show that there is community consensus in support of this power grab?
It's the way things have run for a while now. Your use of "power grab" doesn't make sense here - the ArbCom is a scaling of Jimbo, who used to deal with difficult cases all on his own.
- d.
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:22 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack thereof) without actually seeing the evidence.
Who made you her judge and jury? The action has resulted in an ArbCom case, the ArbCom is assessing it.
The community is the judge and jury of every admin action. Particularly when there is an Request for Comments from the community. Remember us-- the community? Every admin is theoretically supposed to have our trust?
She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take.
Has she? I wasn't aware of that.
Yeah-- supposedly foundation employee Bastique removed the material based on Durova's copyright claims. If you were really crazy, you could say she never claimed copyright-- (Bastique was part of Durova's investigation list, so a cynic could say he did it as some sort of cover up-- but I'm not that cynical myself. I'm sure she really did assert copyright).
Besides, Durova has been repeatedly asked for permission to publish the email on wiki, and has yet to grant it-- forcing anyone who wants to speak intelligently about this subject to visit Wikitruth.
Alec
On 11/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If an admin refuses to publicly reveal the reasons for blocking someone, one alternative is to reveal them to the Arbitration Committee, which she did.
Can you show that there is community consensus in support of this power grab?
"power grab" is a little too Assuming Bad Faith for my taste, but it's clear Durova's secret evidence that neither the community nor the admins at large could review was a substantial departure from previous history.
And it's also quite clear from the RFC that the community didn't care for it one bit.
On Nov 28, 2007 3:02 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:22 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack thereof) without actually seeing the evidence.
Who made you her judge and jury? The action has resulted in an ArbCom case, the ArbCom is assessing it.
The community is the judge and jury of every admin action. Particularly when there is an Request for Comments from the community. Remember us-- the community? Every admin is theoretically supposed to have our trust?
The community can comment without seeing personal e-mails, and the RfC became moot when the RFAR was opened.
She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take.
Has she? I wasn't aware of that.
Yeah-- supposedly foundation employee Bastique removed the material based on Durova's copyright claims.
Where did Bastique say that Durova threatened to sue the foundation?
Besides, Durova has been repeatedly asked for permission to publish the email on wiki, and has yet to grant it-- forcing anyone who wants to speak intelligently about this subject to visit Wikitruth.
Oddly enough, the reading of that e-mail has not seemed to produce that result.
On 28/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's the way things have run for a while now. Your use of "power grab" doesn't make sense here - the ArbCom is a scaling of Jimbo, who used to deal with difficult cases all on his own.
Not really. Historically I doubt someone refusing to explain their actions to anyone below Jimbo would have got very far. Admins were expected to explain their actions to the community if anyone cared enough to ask. Stating that it is acceptable for someone to refuse to justify themselves to anyone other than arbcom is a power grap since it neatly removes the reviewing role from the community. Of course such systems are fairly popular in meatspace although I doubt that arbcom would be prepared to accept the normal requirements in the western world for hearing evidence in secret.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:18:23 +0000, Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Secret mailing lists devoted to "private investigations" and "confidential evidence" are a bad thing
Private <> secret.
Semantics. It really depends on agreements about how to use the language. There is no rule to say that it is or isn't.
Ec
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:02 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The community is the judge and jury of every admin action. Particularly when there is an Request for Comments from the community. Remember us-- the community? Every admin is theoretically supposed to have our trust?
The community can comment without seeing personal e-mails,
Heck, the community can comment without getting to see any of the evidence! But if you actually care about what the community is going to say, and plan to listen to it somehow, you have to show them the evidence.
and the RfC became moot when the RFAR was opened.
RFCs are never moot because of an RFAr. Consensus trumps Arbcom-- Arbcom's just there for those gray cases where we prior dispute resolution couldn't come to consensus.
Alec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:35:23 -0500, "David Goodman" wrote
The clue is when a new user who looks like a returner making use of previously acquired operating knowledge starts making dubiously productive edits, and doesnt respond to a question about whether and under what ID he has previously edited. Nobody does that with honest intentions.
They do, actually. Well, more or less honest anyway. Just not very often. Users returning after an expired ban and genuinely wanting to start afresh, for example.
In such cases I think it would be reasonable to ask them to email the arbitrators their original account identity.
And you can't assume anything unless you have first asked them.
Ec
On 28/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
They do, actually. Well, more or less honest anyway. Just not very often. Users returning after an expired ban and genuinely wanting to start afresh, for example. In such cases I think it would be reasonable to ask them to email the arbitrators their original account identity.
And you can't assume anything unless you have first asked them.
If they're clearly returning one might leave a "welcome back" message for them. IMO it's really not worth making a fuss over unless and until there's a reason to.
- d.
On Nov 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:02 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The community is the judge and jury of every admin action. Particularly when there is an Request for Comments from the community. Remember us-- the community? Every admin is theoretically supposed to have our trust?
The community can comment without seeing personal e-mails,
Heck, the community can comment without getting to see any of the evidence! But if you actually care about what the community is going to say, and plan to listen to it somehow, you have to show them the evidence.
It's not clear what you're saying; what is the purpose of the RFC, in your view?
and the RfC became moot when the RFAR was opened.
RFCs are never moot because of an RFAr. Consensus trumps Arbcom-- Arbcom's just there for those gray cases where we prior dispute resolution couldn't come to consensus.
So once the RFAR opened, what was the purpose of the RFC?
On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
RFCs are never moot because of an RFAr. Consensus trumps Arbcom-- Arbcom's just there for those gray cases where we prior dispute resolution couldn't come to consensus.
So once the RFAR opened, what was the purpose of the RFC?
Well first and foremost-- at the time the RFAr opened, Durova was still an admin, and there was an emerging consensus that she had lost the community's trust. The RFC continued well after the start of the Arbcom in order to assess that. Once she resigned, that issue was moot.
Another function of the RFC was that it served as a forum for feedback to the project from the community about the appropriateness of Durova's behavior (and, of course, the appropriateness of similar behavior in the future was it to recurr).
Alec
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Sanity checks were performed regularly.
Psychiatry for Dummies, anyone?[1]. Sanity checks are a funny thing. Sometimes diagnosis creates more problems than the suspected condition ever would.
In some circles sanity is defined by reference to conformity.
Ec
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 11/28/07, jayjg wrote:
She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take.
Has she? I wasn't aware of that.
Yeah-- supposedly foundation employee Bastique removed the material based on Durova's copyright claims. If you were really crazy, you could say she never claimed copyright-- (Bastique was part of Durova's investigation list, so a cynic could say he did it as some sort of cover up-- but I'm not that cynical myself. I'm sure she really did assert copyright).
Besides, Durova has been repeatedly asked for permission to publish the email on wiki, and has yet to grant it-- forcing anyone who wants to speak intelligently about this subject to visit Wikitruth.
Framing this in terms of copyright violation is a red herring. You can't copyright facts, so rewording the facts would get around this. At the same time I don't see that naming names is that important. Durova should not be put into a position of being pressured to deal with conflicting ethics.
The principle that secret evidence should not be the basis for punishments is more important.
Ec
On Nov 28, 2007 2:18 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The principle that secret evidence should not be the basis for punishments is more important.
I'm confused... we do that all the time with Checkuser results. Why would other information of similarly sensitive nature not be both used and treated with care in terms of distribution and privacy concerns?
On 28/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Sanity checks were performed regularly.
Psychiatry for Dummies, anyone?[1]. Sanity checks are a funny thing. Sometimes diagnosis creates more problems than the suspected condition ever would.
In some circles sanity is defined by reference to conformity.
I believed it was George Orwell who defined "lunatic" as "minority of one".
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:38:47 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Private <> secret.
Semantics. It really depends on agreements about how to use the language. There is no rule to say that it is or isn't.
No, not really. Private means private and secret means secret.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:33:30 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links.
FSVO "valuable" obviously.
Guy (JzG)
note my "dubiously" But that can be in the eye of the beholder, so I think you make a [erfectly reasonable suggestion,
On 11/28/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:35:23 -0500, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The clue is when a new user who looks like a returner making use of previously acquired operating knowledge starts making dubiously productive edits, and doesnt respond to a question about whether and under what ID he has previously edited. Nobody does that with honest intentions.
They do, actually. Well, more or less honest anyway. Just not very often. Users returning after an expired ban and genuinely wanting to start afresh, for example.
In such cases I think it would be reasonable to ask them to email the arbitrators their original account identity.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk Tue Nov 27 23:26:58 UTC 2007
Oh, and your recollection of certain other events isn't entirely accurate either. "First, I had almost nothing to do with the investigations list and have virtually no knowledge of it". This is, in fact, simply not true. I have in front my eyes a fair few of your posts to that list, which nicely display you fully aware of that list and actively participating in the merry "sleuthing". My picture is crystal-clear - my own eyes! 5 or 6 posts? Ok, not massive, but really quite busy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreschi, your assumption of bad faith is disappointing and it's creating unnecessary toxicity around this subject.
I am telling you again that I had very little to do with the investigations list, and if you've seen the posts to it, you'll know that's true. I believe it was created to separate discussions about general sockpuppetry from the cyberstalking list. It never had much traffic that I recall, and I also don't recall any mention of !! on it -- though I didn't read most of the mail, so it's possible I missed it.
As for the cyberstalking list, I am telling you, as others have, that there was no discussion on it about whether to block !!. Durova posted a "case study" on November 3 on how she spots sockpuppets, using !! as an example. She didn't say she was about to block the account. She didn't ask for feedback about a block.
The next we heard about !! was after the block on November 18. If the November 3 discussion had been the only impetus for the block, it's unlikely Durova would have waited for another 15 days before doing it.
After Durova posted onwiki that she had received positive feedback about the block from five editors, I told her I hoped she wasn't referring to the list. She replied that there had been other private e-mails and chats.
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were with, and I see no point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
Sarah
George Herbert wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 2:18 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The principle that secret evidence should not be the basis for punishments is more important
I'm confused... we do that all the time with Checkuser results. Why would other information of similarly sensitive nature not be both used and treated with care in terms of distribution and privacy concerns?
Checkuser is a defined operation. It has been pre-approved for use under specified circumstances. When it was first introduced there was talk about having at least two users authorized on each project so that they could watch each other. Suggestions of abuse have been raised before, but that too has a limited scope.
The current arguments relate to less well defined processes. When transparency is important the circumstances where information must be restricted need to be made very clear, or people will start to imagine all sorts of conspiracies. Not saying who information came from may be perfectly acceptable, but not saying what the sin was or giving the person an opportunity to defend himself is bound to create problems.
Ec
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 23:18 -0600, SlimVirgin wrote:
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were with, and I see no point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
The point that some in this thread wanting to make, is that there's no way for the community to know whether its the case Durova heard Y when X was said, or whether she heard Y because that was what was said by the people she discussed it with, unless what was discussed is known.
And if its the latter case, the community would want to know, as argued by the editors wanting to know more, who those 5 were so that it can pay a closer attention to their judgements.
There is no point in conducting a witchhunt if its the former case, but the argument is that we cannot see (and hence decide) if it's actually the latter case.
KTC
Slim Virgin wrote:
As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
Sarah
Absolutely, however, the hunt for the others on the grassy knoll is now now doomed to enter the wikipedia mythology. Unfortunately, this whole incident simply demonstrates the corrosive effects of paranoia, conspiracy theories, and the obsession with "outing" and purging evildoers. Avoiding paranoia is simply "Assume Good Faith" writ large.
Perhaps it's time for us all to say "I'm Spartacus" - and don't bother throwing me in the lake, because I float.
Doc
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 11/28/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
RFCs are never moot because of an RFAr.
An RFC is moot from the moment of its creation onward.
Consensus trumps Arbcom--
Hopefully you can hear the big black roflcopters landing at your doorstep.
Arbcom's just there for those gray cases where we prior dispute resolution couldn't come to consensus.
In theory, maybe, but in practice, arbcom hears whatever it wants to hear and disregards the rest.
I should clarify, before anyone construes this as an opinionated and derogatory paraphrasing of "The Boxer" (which it is), rather than a simple fact (which it also is), that when I say "wants to hear" I'm referring to the language used in sections like "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/5/0/0)", etc. etc.
—C.W.
On 11/28/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom's just there for those gray cases where we prior dispute resolution couldn't come to consensus.
And if Arbcom knows, in advance, that it's not going to "come to consensus" either, it has the option not to waste anybody's time hearing (i.e. deliberating upon) the matter. See previous.
—C.W.
On 11/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they're clearly returning one might leave a "welcome back" message for them.
LOL. Please tell me we have a template for that?
—C.W.
On Nov 29, 2007 4:17 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 23:18 -0600, SlimVirgin wrote:
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were with, and I see no point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
The point that some in this thread wanting to make, is that there's no way for the community to know whether its the case Durova heard Y when X was said, or whether she heard Y because that was what was said by the people she discussed it with, unless what was discussed is known.
And if its the latter case, the community would want to know, as argued by the editors wanting to know more, who those 5 were so that it can pay a closer attention to their judgements.
There is no point in conducting a witchhunt if its the former case, but the argument is that we cannot see (and hence decide) if it's actually the latter case.
Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means). People who are actually on the cyberstalking list have stated quite clearly that Durova did not even propose blocking !! there, yet despite this the witchhunt continues, with demands that everyone on the list be named, or five specific individuals be named, that all e-mails on the list be made public, that the e-mails supporting this block be made public (despite the clear statements that the block wasn't even discussed), and who knows what else. And since I'm a proponent of being specific, Alec Conroy has been front and center in the hysteria, making wild claims - for example
"Your summary of the lists as little more than a support group does not jibe with the known facts. The lists was used to collaborate and coordinate self-described "sleuthing". Proposed bans were discussed, acted upon, and defended. Your denial of this suggests that no significant change has taken place in the use of the list since its existence was revealed." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi...
And this after it has been stated unequivocally that no such thing happened. Alec has also been front and center in making other outrageous claims and demands; for example, he seems to believe that if a Wikipedia administrator mentions anything about Wikipedia in a private e-mail, then it is his right to see it (see diff provided above). Others have contributed to this nonsense, by continuing to assert, in the face of clear statements to the contrary, that the cyberstalking list co-ordinated !!'s block; Relata Refero talks of a "systemic issue" and various imaginary list "processes" that led to the blocking, and Ray Saintonge insists we are actually trying to avoid discussing the "systemic issues" of a system that doesn't actually exist. And geni, of course, comes in with the usual cryptic non-sequiturs; apparently this is a scandal of Enron-like proportions, and if someone fails to read and respond to every one of the hundreds of e-mails they receive daily then it is a moral failing in some unnamed "moral system" of unnamed religious groups who believe in collective punishment and follow Asimov's first law of robotics.
The facts of the situation are that on November 3 Durova sent a "lesson in spotting returning editors" to the cyberstalking list, where, according to all reports, it received little attention and even less response. *Fifteen days later* Durova blocked !!, and 72 minutes after that unblocked !!. Since then there has been an ever increasing tide of hysteria surrounding this 72 minute block, with multiple AN, wikien-l, and other threads, an RFC, posting of private e-mails, OFFICE removals of same, leaking of membership lists, and now an ArbCom case which appears to be rapidly reaching a conclusion. Durova has already voluntarily given up her adminship status, something I do not believe the ArbCom would have removed from her. While some may still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
Sarah
The admonition against whitchunting should be taken to heart by everyone. The "case study" Durova posted was a classic example of a witchunt mentality, what Thatcher131 referred to as bigfoot believers looking for evidence of bigfoot and finding it.
If we focussed on bad or disruptive editing rather than witchunting productive editors on the suspicion that they are secretly bad editors waiting for a moment to strike we would waste a lot less time and find far fewer people "guilty by suspicion" rather than guilty based on their actions.
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 Nov 29, 2007 11:14 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
While some may still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
Jay, since you are now against witchhunts do you promise not to go hunting for accounts that have edited productively but that you suspect to be secretly abusive accounts lying in wait. Your banning of Tor accounts whose edits have been productive rather than abusive come to mind.
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 Nov 29, 2007 11:14 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The facts of the situation are that on November 3 Durova sent a "lesson in spotting returning editors" to the cyberstalking list, where, according to all reports, it received little attention and even less response. *Fifteen days later* Durova blocked !!, and 72 minutes after that unblocked !!.
When was the email originally made public, in what forum, and under what pretense? I don't expect you to answer this, but maybe someone else can fill me in or that missing link?
Since then there has been an ever increasing tide of hysteria surrounding this 72 minute block, with multiple AN, wikien-l, and other threads, an RFC, posting of private e-mails, OFFICE removals of same, leaking of membership lists, and now an ArbCom case which appears to be rapidly reaching a conclusion.
A lot of what you call "hysteria" doesn't seem to be over the block so much as the mailing lists themsevles. The block is apparently what brought the email to light, and the email is what brought to light the mailing lists, which most of us knew nothing about until the email was made public.
Durova has already voluntarily given up her adminship status, something I do not believe the ArbCom would have removed from her.
I certainly hope they would have. The email showed a lack of ability to engage in the type of logical reasoning necessary to be a good admin, and from what I've seen her response so far has been equally lacking.
While some may still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
I find it humorous how much hypocrisy there is in this whole incident. Telling people to assume good faith in response to an enormous assumption of bad faith; comparing the demand for answers about a group of investigators trying to uncover anyone who is now or ever has associated themselves with Wikipedia Review to McCarthyism...
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:14 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Since then there has been an ever increasing tide of hysteria surrounding this 72 minute block, with multiple AN, wikien-l, and other threads, an RFC, posting of private e-mails, OFFICE removals of same, leaking of membership lists, and now an ArbCom case which appears to be rapidly reaching a conclusion.
A lot of what you call "hysteria" doesn't seem to be over the block so much as the mailing lists themsevles. The block is apparently what brought the email to light, and the email is what brought to light the mailing lists, which most of us knew nothing about until the email was made public.
Exactly. And so what?
While some may still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
I find it humorous how much hypocrisy there is in this whole incident. Telling people to assume good faith in response to an enormous assumption of bad faith; comparing the demand for answers about a group of investigators trying to uncover anyone who is now or ever has associated themselves with Wikipedia Review to McCarthyism...
You see, this is why I rarely respond to your e-mails, Anthony. The cyberstalking list was set up for Wikipedians who have been cyberstalked as a result of their Wikipedia activities. I'm not aware of any "group of investigators trying to uncover anyone who is now or ever has associated themselves with Wikipedia Review"; that's more hysteria.
On 11/28/07, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
For once, Slim, I hope one of your explanations is correct. Of course nobody will really know for sure unless they have a generally accurate idea as to what, if anything, was actually said.
If there are "copyright issues", it can all be paraphrased. If the other parties have privacy concerns, their names can be omitted. If there is sensitive information about the user being discussed, it can be replaced with placeholders as appropriate. Maybe the hypothetical finished product, like many "de-classified" documents, would be 90% blacked out. Not a big deal, as the only salient part would be whether the prospect of blocking was ever actually mentioned.
Unfortunately this overlooks the fact that said documents (if they exist), being digital, can be modified to no end, and with impunity if there were no original copies to compare against.
—C.W.
On Nov 29, 2007 12:26 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/07, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
For once, Slim, I hope one of your explanations is correct. Of course nobody will really know for sure unless they have a generally accurate idea as to what, if anything, was actually said.
Actually, you do know for sure. Matt said it, Guy said it, Slim said it, and I'm sure they all "have a generally accurate idea as to what, if anything, was actually said."
On 11/29/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
At face value, that is a brilliant statement. Now, if only I knew for sure which group you were referring to, and which activities are considered un-Wikipedian in this context... :)
—C.W.
On Nov 29, 2007 12:36 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
At face value, that is a brilliant statement. Now, if only I knew for sure which group you were referring to, and which activities are considered un-Wikipedian in this context... :)
Which group is insisting that names be named, and private e-mails be brought forth for the Committee to see?
On Nov 29, 2007 12:19 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:14 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
While some may still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
I find it humorous how much hypocrisy there is in this whole incident. Telling people to assume good faith in response to an enormous assumption of bad faith; comparing the demand for answers about a group of investigators trying to uncover anyone who is now or ever has associated themselves with Wikipedia Review to McCarthyism...
You see, this is why I rarely respond to your e-mails, Anthony.
It'd probably make more sense to respond to one of my e-mails which is not an example of why you rarely respond to my emails.
The cyberstalking list was set up for Wikipedians who have been cyberstalked as a result of their Wikipedia activities.
Clearly it was set up for Wikipedians who claim to have been cyberstalked. What's unclear is what those people talk about on the list, at least, other than the one email which did come to light and was not at all positive.
I'm not aware of any "group of investigators trying to uncover anyone who is now or ever has associated themselves with Wikipedia Review"; that's more hysteria.
Just because you're unaware of something doesn't make it untrue.