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

[Relata Refero]

On Nov 29, 2007 4:14 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >

>
> Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but
> unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several
> individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used
> to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other
> wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means).
Rot. After the denials that the block was discussed on-list, the
discussion has moved on. Move with it, don't keep on making the point
you can make.
And my point about diversity of attitudes is hardly a wild accusation.
I'm sure it would be much more convenient if it was.


>
> And this after it has been stated unequivocally that no such thing
> happened. Alec has also been front and center in making other
> outrageous claims and demands; for example, he seems to believe that
> if a Wikipedia administrator mentions anything about Wikipedia in a
> private e-mail, then it is his right to see it (see diff provided
> above).

Not 'anything about Wikipedia'. If an adminstrator saw that laughable
evidence and believed it was grounds for a block, Alec would want to
know why. So would a lot of people.

 Others have contributed to this nonsense, by continuing to
> assert, in the face of clear statements to the contrary, that the
> cyberstalking list co-ordinated !!'s block;
No they haven't. How can one co-ordinate a block anyway?

 Relata Refero talks of a
> "systemic issue" and various imaginary list "processes" that led to
> the blocking, and Ray Saintonge insists we are actually trying to
> avoid discussing the "systemic issues" of a system that doesn't
> actually exist.
If you believe that there are no institutional factors that creep in
whenever people create structures of power and information-sharing
between themselves, you are welcome to your opinion. You'd be in a
massive minority, though. Incidentally,  I don't believe, nor did I
say or imply that the ''list' had a process problem: I believe the way
that some admins go about fighting crime on- and off-wiki is a process
problem.

 And geni, of course, comes in with the usual cryptic
> non-sequiturs; apparently this is a scandal of Enron-like proportions,
> and if someone fails to read and respond to every one of the hundreds
> of e-mails they receive daily then it is a moral failing in some
> unnamed "moral system" of unnamed religious groups who believe in
> collective punishment and follow Asimov's first law of robotics.
>
Rot, again. Its a failing if they read it and didn't think it worth
responding, even if there was no block proposed. Its not a moral
failing. Its a failure of representation. If that evidence had been
read by an equal number of random editors, is there an equal
likelihood that no response would have come in?

While some may
> still think there is value in insisting that witnesses should be
> subpoenaed here to name names, I think it's time to call this House
> Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities to a close.
Nice rhetoric, if a little stale and definitely inapplicable. There's
a difference between creating evidence where there is none, or
implying misdemeanours where none are proved, and stating that if
evidence exists, it would be better for the community if it were
produced. Its as if it weren't McCarthy holding up a list of suspected
communists, but McCarthy saying that AT&T should turn over copies of
telegrams the communists sent the Kremlin. Which is a lot less
unreasonable, but, of course, not that good rhetorically.

RR