[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[Relata Refero]

On Nov 27, 2007 3:07 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:19:11 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
> <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Absolute, pure, unmitigated bullshit.
>
> >Dude-- that's already been admitted to.   The list WAS secret--
> >Durova's email admits that.  The list DID involve secret evidence
> >against !!,  we know that. The list WAS made to help people coordinate
> >their efforts to manage harassment-- you just told me that yourself.
> >I'm not alleging anything hasn't been revealed already.
>
> No, what you are "revealing" is your own spin on it.  The list is
> not secret, it is private.  The two are different.  It does not
> exist as a covert "votes for banning", which did not stop Durova
> from sending that email.  The list exists to discuss harassment and
> its effects.


Guy, I rather believe that most of us are concerned that this list or
another like it has been perverted from that goal towards creating an
unfortunate echo chamber for those who would like to see more zealous
attempts to stamp out what they think is maliciously instigated drama and
disruption. This might create the effect that individual subscribers think
actions are 'approved' when they're actually unread or misunderstood, or in
cultivating a climate of groupthink in which one side of the evidence is
presented and people show up in on-wiki discussions in a bunch with their
minds made up, thus increasing drama all round. (None of this is good for
the project. Note that there are absolutely no assumptions of bad faith,
caricatures of an opposing viewpoint or anything of the sort in the above
discussion, so do try not to respond as if there are.)


>
>
> >> This is a list that includes arbitrators and Jimbo and exists for
> >> the sole expressed purpose of helping people to better manage
> >> harassment.
>
> >If the two lists were so clear-cut appropriate, why were their
> >existence such a closely guarded  secret?
>
> It wasn't.  It just wasn't advertised.  There was no reason to
> advertise it.  We already knew who the victims of harassment on
> Wikipedia were, so there was no need to actively solicit others.
>

Good lord.  That's patently absurd. Not everyone on WP who was 'harassed' in
the sense in which you are using the word was done so by the websites we're
aware of, and the fact that you would say/think that is another indication
that you're taking too narrowly-focused a view of the problem.


>If this behavior was so appropriate, why did the RFC against Durova go
> >so badly?  Is the community's opinion just not valid?  Has an ARMY of
> >ED trolls descended on the encyclopedia, posed for years at a time as
> >regular users, just so they could wait for an RFC against Durova to
> >magically cast off their loyal-wikipedian persona and criticize her
> >behavior in using the secret evidence on the secret list?
>
> The RfC against Durova went badly because Durova fucked up badly.
> And because there are some people who already hate Durova, some of
> whom are the ones who were harassing her.


And also because a large number of people just don't like the climate, and
believe it inhibits contribution. Please see the  outside opinion beginning
"I am just a small editor..."


>
>
> >> You have been told this before, and yet you still posted this
> >> egregious trolling.  Way to go, Alec.
>
> >Thanks Guy--  I always know I can count on you to go personal attack.
>
> False.  I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing
> to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by
> someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is
> trolling.
>
> You could always try, you know, not doing it.
>

If so, you could occasionally leave it to others to respond, Guy. Especially
if you notice that your responses recently are not really making the
situation calmer or leading to some form of natural resolution most of the
time. To move away from the abstract from a moment, I think we would be well
served if you, Guy, decided to be a bit calmer and less impulsive about
these issues;  and Alec, just don't use the word BADSITES again, please.
This is a genuine problem, and we don't want another distracting volley of
this sort.


RR