What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles watchlisted; not to mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely, IMO, to ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although that could just be naivte.
So now it seems we're destine for the latter, and the best thing we
can do is to let everyone know that the lists exist, and the next time six peopel show up and agree, don't just automatically assume you got six independent opinions-- instead consider the possibility that you got one opinion and five friends.
Avi wrote:
What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles watchlisted; not to mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely, IMO, to ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although that could just be naivte.
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form), that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being condoned by some part of he community.
On 04/12/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Avi wrote:
What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles watchlisted; not to mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely, IMO, to ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although that could just be naivte.
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form), that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being condoned by some part of he community.
I'd call it more "unavoidable" than "condoned" per se. The community still pretty clearly holds the person acting responsible for their actions. If emailing other editors is considered evil, you'll get people appearing to agree without even adding "I discussed this with [actor] and ..."
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 04/12/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form), that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being condoned by some part of he community.
I'd call it more "unavoidable" than "condoned" per se. The community still pretty clearly holds the person acting responsible for their actions. If emailing other editors is considered evil, you'll get people appearing to agree without even adding "I discussed this with [actor] and ..."
We could make it more clear to people that administrators acting in the guise of an administrator (as opposed to just doing normal editing that anyone can do) should make extra careful to both not be doing anything improper and also not to appear to be doing so. That Wikipedia could be de-facto co-opted by a cabal of sorts, either internal or external, isn't an entirely unreasonable fear, since that sort of thing has happened to many organizations before (entryism long predates the internet). People are therefore naturally wary of it, so it's worth making some effort to reassure them that nothing of the sort is going on. This doesn't require banning all private communications, but there's some point between discussing things with other admins, and 60 admins coming out of nowhere to act in concert with no public discussion having taken place first, that crosses into "certainly looks like a cabal to me" behavior.
-Mark
On Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Avi wrote:
What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles
watchlisted;
not to mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely,
IMO,
to ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although
that
could just be naivte.
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form), that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being condoned by some part of he community.
I disagree.
I think that it would be better to move towards normal operations where any behind-the-scenes discussions are irrelevant to what is done on-wiki.
There was nothing wrong with Durova making a block. There was nothing wrong with a block being based on a mistaken interpretation of some evidence (that happens to any admin doing any type of abuse fighting for long enough). There wasn't anything wrong with the discussion (apparently one sided and as it was) on the private list that preceded it.
There was a perception that there'd been more behind-the-scenes evidence and discussion, and upset people when both of those turned out to be untrue and that there'd been a venue used that most people were unaware of.
If one puts all the evidence cards on the table (or offers to do so if there's controversy) when blocking or taking other administrative action, there's not much anyone can complain about regarding private discussions or other work that may have preceded the action offline. Block is for X Y Z, and it doesn't matter if admins A B and C agreed with blocking admin Q on mailing list M and F and G agreed with Q in separate private emails.
One simply points to X Y and Z and those can stand or fall on their merits.
There are exceptions, for checkuser evidence and other privacy related and Office related info. Most of which can be results-summarized (H and J used same IP addresses, L threatened to sue via email to Office...) But other than that, put cards on table.
On Dec 4, 2007 3:24 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Avi wrote:
What bothers me about the quote below is that it completely ignores the fact that like-minded editors usually have the same articles
watchlisted;
not to mention the fact that we all have editors who when we see there names as the last edit in our watchlist, pique our interest to look at the discussion--editors we agree or disagree with. It's more likely,
IMO,
to ascribe "blocks" to editor watchlists than private lists, although
that
could just be naivte.
The private lists are not the problem per se. The problem is that there is behind-the-scenes collusion (in any form), that it is leading to action, that it is leading to hasty or mal-thought-action, and most importantly, that this is being condoned by some part of he community.
I disagree.
I think that it would be better to move towards normal operations where any behind-the-scenes discussions are irrelevant to what is done on-wiki.
There was nothing wrong with Durova making a block. There was nothing wrong with a block being based on a mistaken interpretation of some evidence (that happens to any admin doing any type of abuse fighting for long enough). There wasn't anything wrong with the discussion (apparently one sided and as it was) on the private list that preceded it.
It's ironic that the block of Miltopia referred to in Durova's email, which most likely was a correct one, actually raises more questions of impropriety than the block of !!, which turned out to be incorrect.
On Dec 4, 2007 12:36 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's ironic that the block of Miltopia referred to in Durova's email, which most likely was a correct one, actually raises more questions of impropriety than the block of !!, which turned out to be incorrect.
I don't know how it could. Jimmy is always talking to people in many venues public and private about Wikipedia. That Miltopia had exhausted some of the communities' patience was clear well before Jimmy acted. The question was whether it was critical mass for someone to issue a community ban and make it stick or not.
My personal opinion was that Miltopia was irritating but not disruptive. But if I had to judge the opinion of the majority of people on every venue I am aware of, on or off wiki, I get the same sense of a consensus that it was time for him to go.
If the ban had been put up for a community ban consensus confirmation or rejection afterwards, I think he would clearly have stayed banned.