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 ****** Alec, I appreciate that you're giving me some credit for stepping forward to take the heat for my own mistake. Nobody else needs to. The mistake was mine.
There are several fundamental logical errors happening on the part of the people who are promoting this argument: you're failing to recognize the possibility of alternative explanations that place the whole thing in a much different light. That was a key mistake I made. You're making it too.
I said in my evidence statement that the list isn't pertinent. I have also said repeatedly that the mistakes I made belong to me. It's obvious from my perspective how loudly and fiercely a pack of hounds are barking up the wrong tree. The irony here is too complete to ignore.
When I got the !! block wrong I didn't dig in my heels and demand the full details of why and how the editor had changed accounts. It was enough for me to get one confirmable piece of evidence that contradicted my previous conclusion. As soon as I had that I did a complete turnaround, with apologies and my best efforts at atonement, and that's not an easy step to take. There's a very human impulse to reach for excuses.
I'm not going to point out exactly where your logical errors are because, no doubt, that would only lead to further loose cannon speculation. At least I had enough rigor in my research to collect more than two dozen diffs and compare them to an existing hypothesis. The hypothesis itself was unsound, but the evidence available to me at the time did match it. The evidence already available to you does not match your hypothesis. All you need to do is go over existing statements in the site history files and you'll see several ways that it doesn't match.
Now if you want to know why I'm on that cyberstalking list, there are several reasons. Have the decency to suppose that it is what it is, and leave the good people alone.
I'd be very impressed if people who've pursued that line of reasoning took the same steps I did: open mouth, remove foot, stand up, apologize.
-Durova
Durova wrote:
Alec, I appreciate that you're giving me some credit for stepping forward to take the heat for my own mistake.
Well, I appreciate your kind words. I'm a little confused by your statement of "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you how". Obviously, you must know that I can't actually take that on faith, but I will keep looking.
Now if you want to know why I'm on that cyberstalking list, there are several reasons. Have the decency to suppose that it is what it is, and leave the good people alone.
The cyberstalking list, problematic though it is, isn't as enigmatic as the investigations list. The investigations list was clearly formed just for the purpose of gathering evidence to support bans. The cyberstalking list might have a claim to being "support-group-esque", but the investigations list, by its name, summary, and the content of its messages, certainly appears to be a place designed to influence on-wiki actions.
you're failing to recognize the possibility of alternative explanations that place the whole thing in a much different light. That was a key mistake I made. You're making it too.
Well, that's a very valid possibilty. I would like to point out two critical differences though:
1. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of bad faith-- merely poor judgement. !! was suspected of actually trying to subvert it. The wpinvestigations-l sleuths are merely suspected of exhibiting poor judgment. Nobody is suspecting you of subversion, we're just suspecting you guys of inadvertantly causing more harm than good.
2. I'm not trying to ban anybody. I'm just saying-- administrators of this project obviously rendered judgments on your evidence-- we should be able to see those judgments, so we can better assess how to help those individuals better contribute to the project. Worst case scenario, they have to return to the community and ask if they are still trusted.
There were in-depth deliberations about [[User:!!]] that led to his blocking. Since that block was in error, we want to be able to look at the conversations that led up to his blocking, so we can see who all was at fault, where the system broke down, and how we can fix it.
This shouldn't be a controversial request, it should be a commonplace one. In every erroneous block, people go back over the discussions to see what went wrong. The only thing that's different in this case is that you guy took your deliberations off-wiki, and are not trying to prevent the community from reviewing what precisely went wrong. I realize that may feel like an invasion of privacy, since you guys thought the deliberations would be secret when you held them-- but sadly, that's your own fault for doing admin investigations in a secret venue.
It's noble of you to try to assure us that, if we could see the evidence, we would see that you are the only one at fault here. But surely you must understand, given the recent history, why we aren't going to be willing to take your word for what the evidence will and will not show.
Alec
On Nov 27, 2007 6:47 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
There were in-depth deliberations about [[User:!!]] that led to his blocking.
Not on either the cyberstalking list or the investigations list. In fact, nothing about !! got posted to the latter list at all. If any discussion of this took place AT ALL, it was in one-to-one conversation between Durova and individuals. I do not know of any such.
Since that block was in error, we want to be able to look at the conversations that led up to his blocking, so we can see who all was at fault, where the system broke down, and how we can fix it.
And when you're told that there were not any such conversations?
The key here is that you want to "see who all was at fault"; in other words, fishing.
-Matt
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:55:56 -0800, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Not on either the cyberstalking list or the investigations list. In fact, nothing about !! got posted to the latter list at all. If any discussion of this took place AT ALL, it was in one-to-one conversation between Durova and individuals. I do not know of any such.
I just searched again through both, and I agree. I don't think any of us were expecting that block.
Guy (JzG)
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 6:47 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
There were in-depth deliberations about [[User:!!]] that led to his blocking.
Not on either the cyberstalking list or the investigations list. In fact, nothing about !! got posted to the latter list at all. If any discussion of this took place AT ALL, it was in one-to-one conversation between Durova and individuals. I do not know of any such.
Alec is just not in possession of the facts. He should stop posting until he finds out what the truth is.
But to confirm what Matthew Brown has said: there were no in-depth deliberations about !! on the cyberstalking mailing list that led to his blocking. (Indeed, if there had been, he would not have been blocked!)
This was one admins error, which she has freely admitted and apologized for. Those trying to find a deeper cabal behind it are mistaken.
--Jimbo
On 11/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alec is just not in possession of the facts. He should stop posting until he finds out what the truth is.
Well, understand-- I'm really not out to cause drama. If I was confidence silence would have led the community to the truth, I'd greatly prefer that. But seriously-- my concerns are valid, and widespread. An admin justified a block based on secret evidence submitted to a secret list-- secret at least to the vast majority of us. That's bound to raise lots of questions. If the manner in which I raise them is inappropriate, forgive me-- I don't mean to offend or upset.
It's just that this "anti-troll" crusade has gone on for far too long, and has hurt too many people. Personal attacks are slung, I can't get them stopped. Edit wars are waged, I can't get warnings issues. Every other message devolves to ad hominem. There seems to be clear consensus from the community that the there's a problem here, but yet the problem continues month after month after month. How many friends you have is often more important than evidence. Clown proposals that make a mockery of NPOV. Blatantly inappropriate behavior may be ignored if the troublemakers are popular enough, and all you get in exchange for the time you took to help is a string of personal attacks.
I'm not saying all that his what is really going on-- but that's been my emotional experience of being an advocate for various community consensuses that are unpopular with the popular people.
And to then open up your browser and see a ban for secret evidence. A secret list none of us regular users were allowed to know about. Hearing allegations that even good admins are being angrily discussed as if they were . "Leaked Evidence" that is purged from wikipedia based on copyright claims. And then, to see the actual evidence, and have it be what it was....
It's enough to give anyone a crisis of faith about Wikipedia.
Alec
Alec Conroy wrote:
The cyberstalking list, problematic though it is, isn't as enigmatic as the investigations list. The investigations list was clearly formed just for the purpose of gathering evidence to support bans. The cyberstalking list might have a claim to being "support-group-esque", but the investigations list, by its name, summary, and the content of its messages, certainly appears to be a place designed to influence on-wiki actions.
The cyberstalking list is in no way problematic.
I know nothing about any "investigations list" and can't comment. But in general, a list for investigations does not strike me as particularly problematic at all. It could be a bad thing, depending on what is meant, but the name itself does not automatically mean badness.
A good investigations list would be a quiet place where users could collect information and ask questions.
"Say, this person looks like a sockpuppet..."
"No, not really, check this out..."
"Oh, ok."
Nothing wrong with that, and in fact we need more of it. (IRC serves this function quite usefully in many cases.)
--Jimbo
On Nov 27, 2007 1:01 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
The cyberstalking list, problematic though it is, isn't as enigmatic as the investigations list. The investigations list was clearly formed just for the purpose of gathering evidence to support bans. The cyberstalking list might have a claim to being "support-group-esque", but the investigations list, by its name, summary, and the content of its messages, certainly appears to be a place designed to influence on-wiki actions.
The cyberstalking list is in no way problematic.
I know nothing about any "investigations list" and can't comment.
Isn't this the list about which Guy said "Jimbo was happy to own it, in fact, but I probably have more time." Because, that's the list I was talking about when I said that Guy runs one of them.
But in general, a list for investigations does not strike me as particularly problematic at all. It could be a bad thing, depending on what is meant, but the name itself does not automatically mean badness.
A good investigations list would be a quiet place where users could collect information and ask questions.
"Say, this person looks like a sockpuppet..."
"No, not really, check this out..."
"Oh, ok."
Nothing wrong with that, and in fact we need more of it. (IRC serves this function quite usefully in many cases.)
Even if so, such a list should definitely not be run on Wikia's servers, its existence should not be secret, its membership should be determined in a fair and open process, and it should not reveal private information unless all of its members have been cleared to receive such information.
The cyberstalking list is in no way problematic.
I know nothing about any "investigations list" and can't comment. But in general, a list for investigations does not strike me as particularly problematic at all. It could be a bad thing, depending on what is meant, but the name itself does not automatically mean badness.
A good investigations list would be a quiet place where users could collect information and ask questions.
"Say, this person looks like a sockpuppet..."
"No, not really, check this out..."
"Oh, ok."
Nothing wrong with that, and in fact we need more of it. (IRC serves this function quite usefully in many cases.)
The problem is that this very sensible thing didn't happen. And the reason it didn't, it appears, is that most of the people on the list over-stress the probability and the danger of a sockpuppet of a banned user appearing. This is because bouncing ideas off people is only useful if it they have sufficiently different ideas from you that they will disagree. In this case, nobody seems to have responded to Durova's email. This might well be because they were too detached from the regular editor's experience. Which is precisely why using this sort of self-selected list is unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous . The true lesson: those who are hyper-concerned about infiltration by banned users and the possibility of harassment should please step back a bit, and realise that because they have been thinking about these people and this problem so long and with such (possibly justified) passion, their judgment might need recalibration. (This includes their judgment about what actions are likely to reduce drama, and their judgment about the border between expressing concerns not normally voiced in their hearing and trolling.)
RR
On Nov 27, 2007 11:33 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, nobody seems to have responded to Durova's email. This might well be because they were too detached from the regular editor's experience. Which is precisely why using this sort of self-selected list is unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous .
While I can't speak for others, I didn't even read it. I am on too many mailing lists and suffer from email overload, as do many others I'm sure.
No need to go for complex, motivation-assuming suppositions where simple apathy and lack of time probably suffice.
-Matt