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

[Thatcher131 Wikipedia]

> From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk>
> Date: Nov 27, 2007 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> And why, then, did we think it quite alright to set up a bastard child
> to wpcyberstalking, wpinvestigations-1? This little list I know quite
> a lot about - I've seen some truly bizarre and quite terrifying
> conversations, including some posts that make you wonder how on earth
> something like the block of !! didn't happen a lot earlier. Sockpuppet
> paranoia, investigation obsession, weird suggestions for the CUs
> galore - it's got the lot, baby. In fact, Thatcher summed this
> wretched list up very nicely: "...unhelpful and possible dangerous
> development. Blocks and such should be
> discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary
> circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases
> should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose,
> rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper
> perspective."
>
> Wikipedia is not a MMORG for SlimVirgin to play webmaster to.

Please note that I have no reason to doubt SlimVirgin's statement that
she did not participate in the Investigations list.  It appears that
Durova's email about !! was sent to the Cyberstalking list as an
example of "here's how to spot a WR troll," and not as "Here is a
troll I would like to block."  Under the circumstances, I can't fault
the members of the list for not saying "Whoa!"  I have seen several
recipients of the email express regret that they did not do so, but
not reading one's mail is not an actionable offense.

As I stated, an Investigations list is an unfortunate development
because it amounts to a group of people who believe in Bigfoot all
looking for evidence that Bigfoot exists.  And, even assuming Durova
is correct that trolls from Wikipedia Review are infiltrating
Wikipedia using a particular pattern of credibility-building edits,
that pattern looks the same as an old user starting over, or possibly
even a new user who is particularly quick to grasp community
conventions.  Which is why I believe blocks should be justified by
on-wiki evidence and behavior, not private evidence and anticipated
behavior.

However, the Cyberstalking list was started with the best intentions
and I hope it is doing some good.  It is important to separate the
medium from the message.  A poorly-judged block is is the
responsibility of the blocker, regardless of whether it was discussed
on a private mailing list, IRC, or by carrier pigeon.  An insular
environment can contribute to poor judgement (and I can name a hundred
real-world examples, from the Bush administration to the University of
Delaware's ideological purity program for freshmen) which is why
insular environments are potentially dangerous.  But ultimately the
responsibility lies with the individual, and beating up on other
participants in the mailing list serves no purpose whatsoever.

Thatcher131