[WikiEN-l] Durova/!! matter now in newspaper.

[George Herbert]

On Dec 4, 2007 11:04 AM, Steve Summit <scs at 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.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com