On Nov 29, 2007 3:17 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 4:14 PM, jayjg jayjg99@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.
No, not really - the accusations were coming long after they'd already been denied. Finally, after repeatedly calling people on it, they sort of kind of moved on, and started talking about "systemic" issues.
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.
You don't seem to be reading what Alec actually said. He said "Yeah, if someone's an administrator discussing Wikipedia business, the 100% _are_ the business of Arbcom and the community."
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.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. geni said it was a moral failing not to read e-mails in some "unamed moral system". When pressed to name that moral system, he referred to Enron, unnamed religious groups, collective punishment, and Asimov's first law of robotics. I'm not making this up, it's in the archives.
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.
So when is this list going to stop "implying misdemeanours where none are proved"?