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

[jayjg]

On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 AM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> The
> >> problem came when the private discussion was used to support direct
> >> public actions while still being kept strictly private. If someone says
> >> "I have evidence this is a sock puppet of a disruptive user," I want to
> >> know what that evidence is before anything remotely like a ban is
> >> considered. If they say "a bunch of other editors support me on this," I
> >> want to know who they are or it's just meaningless noise.
> >
> > I understand you are curious; but since it apparently has nothing to
> > do with wikia hosted lists, why are you bringing it up on wikien-l?
>
> Because the block happened on Wikipedia. That's the "public action" that
> changed everything.

Blocks happen on Wikipedia all the time. I believe they're usually
discussed on AN/I, aren't they?

>
> >> As far as I'm aware Durova's email containing the evidence that was used
> >> as the basis for blocking !! is still thoroughly oversighted and
> >> expunged from Wikipedia. It's silly that I actually had to go to
> >> Wikitruth to find a copy of it.
> >
> > Apparently Wikipedia's lawyer thinks that copyright law trumps your curiosity.
>
> First I've heard that there's been any sort of official statement from
> Wikipedia's lawyer. Is it posted publicly anywhere? I hope you'll
> understand my skepticism under the circumstances.

Yes, of course, you've consistently assumed bad faith up until now,
why break a perfect record?

> Durova is perfectly capable of posting the email to Wikipedia herself,
> everything else aside.

Why on earth should she? It's evidence in an ArbCom case, the ArbCom
has seen it. What business is it of yours?