Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of the trouble because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o coordinated admins?
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and thus contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of the trouble because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o coordinated admins?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different, but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and thus contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of the trouble because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o coordinated admins?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Private discussions are different from private organisations of actions - look at the brew-ha-ha anytime is justified by discussions in #wikipedia-en-admins. The Durova brew-ha-ha was almost identical to any #wikipedia-en-admins block brew-ha-ha - the perception wasn't that discussions were taking place "in private" but that actions were being discussed and approved in private and not publically explained.
Administrative versus Editorial, maybe, but the underlying principle of "only take actions based on publically available reasons and concensuses" is the source of the discord.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different, but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and thus contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of the trouble because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of arguments that were thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing list o coordinated admins?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/4/24 Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
Private discussions are different from private organisations of actions - look at the brew-ha-ha anytime is justified by discussions in #wikipedia-en-admins. The Durova brew-ha-ha was almost identical to any #wikipedia-en-admins block brew-ha-ha - the perception wasn't that discussions were taking place "in private" but that actions were being discussed and approved in private and not publically explained.
Administrative versus Editorial, maybe, but the underlying principle of "only take actions based on publically available reasons and concensuses" is the source of the discord.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding
content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different, but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com
wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and
thus
contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of
the trouble
because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of
arguments that were
thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing
list o
coordinated admins?
mmmmmmmmmm - Wikipedia can be broke by Cabals? Give me a break. The A-Z how to fails on so many grounds it is just laughable. I presume that it was just a test to see how many blog readers could infiltrate Wikipedia by relying on "inside" sysop knowledge.
Wikipedia is Web 2.0 at its most dynamic. Unfortunately sysops have no rule and are continually bombarded by editors or other sysops for explanation of re-rights/deletion/closure of Afd, so it beats the whole idea of cabal.
For Jewish editors, religious, non religious, Zionists or not, the fact that an Israeli conspiracy is raised casts doubt on our integrity (a) on what we can or won't put on our user pages. (b) If we also edit on http://he.wikipedia.org or http://yi.wikipedia.org (c) our editing of articles relating to Israel (secular and non secular).
It sucks, POV and NPOV overide all this discussion. Surely we are all sensible enough to understand that witch-hunts and pograms or SSP is counter-productive.
Mike
This is clearly way more severe than durova if the emails are genuine -- actually, it's insulting to durova to even compare the two.
CAMERA advocated setting up accounts for the purpose of changing israel articles, but having those accounts deliberately spend long periods of time editing non-israel articles -- not because they're actually *interested* in the content of other articles, but just to mask the accounts' actual purpose. CAMERA advocated climbing the ladder to adminship (which is intended to be a janitorial position, but nevermind) not because they care about wikipedia but solely for the purpose of eventually changing articles about israel.
I agree that in practice their plan probably wouldn't have worked. But that's not the point. One of the foundations of wikipedia is that it's a *community* -- a bunch of people who get similar kicks out of collating knowledge, who hash out their differences openly, and who believe that you can't really get anything done without having good, accurate information. For CAMERA, none of this stuff is important, and they're happy to walk all over it.
It's actually *because* I'm jewish (by ethnicity, at least) that I'm coming down so hard -- partly to get across the point that camera is a relatively extreme organization that doesn't represent most jews, and partly because, you know, shaming works. Maybe if enough jews criticize camera they'll start to understand that they were being total *dicks* in this instance.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
Private discussions are different from private organisations of actions - look at the brew-ha-ha anytime is justified by discussions in #wikipedia-en-admins. The Durova brew-ha-ha was almost identical to any #wikipedia-en-admins block brew-ha-ha - the perception wasn't that discussions were taking place "in private" but that actions were being discussed and approved in private and not publically explained.
Administrative versus Editorial, maybe, but the underlying principle of "only take actions based on publically available reasons and concensuses" is the source of the discord.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The Durova case stuff (the stalking email list etc) was not about content, but about administrative stuff, and meta-discussions about process and policy.
It's a wholly different thing than coordinated actions regarding
content.
Private administrative discussions are normal - there's Arbcom's mailing list, the OTRS list, etc. This was a non-foundation/administration run list, which was a little different, but the concept of such things in general was not novel.
Discussions about content which are coordinated off-wiki lead to risk of canvassing and other abuses.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com
wrote:
Discussing and asking for insight on secret list is generally thought to be tenable, while co-ordinating actions is not ("meatpuppeting"). Of course, when conversations are secret, it's hard to know which of these is going on, but eventually the rough idea emerged that the Durova case was only discussion, not co-ordination of action, and
thus
contained nothing actionable. There are probably dissenters of that evaluation, though.
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net
wrote:
Is it just me, or do all the arguments about people being part of
the trouble
because they're on the same mailing list remind anyone of
arguments that were
thoroughly rejected in the Durova case, where it was a mailing
list o
coordinated admins?
mmmmmmmmmm - Wikipedia can be broke by Cabals? Give me a break. The A-Z how to fails on so many grounds it is just laughable. I presume that it was just a test to see how many blog readers could infiltrate Wikipedia by relying on "inside" sysop knowledge.
Wikipedia is Web 2.0 at its most dynamic. Unfortunately sysops have no rule and are continually bombarded by editors or other sysops for explanation of re-rights/deletion/closure of Afd, so it beats the whole idea of cabal.
For Jewish editors, religious, non religious, Zionists or not, the fact that an Israeli conspiracy is raised casts doubt on our integrity (a) on what we can or won't put on our user pages. (b) If we also edit on http://he.wikipedia.org or http://yi.wikipedia.org (c) our editing of articles relating to Israel (secular and non secular).
It sucks, POV and NPOV overide all this discussion. Surely we are all sensible enough to understand that witch-hunts and pograms or SSP is counter-productive.
Mike
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l