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(a)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(a)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(a)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
(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