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

[jayjg]

On Nov 29, 2007 7:53 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2007 at 11:14:18 -0500, 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).
>
> The idea that something along the lines of canvassing occurs on that
> list is far from being farfetched.  In fact, even if the people on
> that list are careful to avoid overt canvassing (blatantly telling
> people to vote a certain way in a certain place), there's a certain
> amount of almost inevitable, even if not necessarily intentional,
> vote stacking that is likely to result from the activity on the list.
> Given that the list is composed of like-minded individuals (at least
> on certain topics relating to their conception of "cyberstalking" and
> "harassment"), the mere mention on the list (even in a totally
> neutral way) of things like "A discussion just started on AN/I about
> the block of User:SomeDumbTroll", or "A straw poll is in progress
> over a new policy on attack-site links" is likely to bring a number
> of people all on the same side of the issue.  Given that, in fact,
> there have been a number of instances of seeming gangups of this
> nature,

There have? Where?

> When other sites and forums do very similar things -- mention the
> existence of a Wikipedia discussion / vote / etc. to an audience of
> like-minded individuals, such as talking about an AFD on a webcomic
> article on a forum of fans of webcomics -- this brings about
> accusations of canvassing.  The same seems to be true of that list.

It does? How could you possibly know that?