So, the word has gotten out on who the members of the "super secret" list that Durova supposedly ran her evidence by for confirmation. It's also been confirmed that this list was created specifically to conduct "sleuthing" style investigations of, well, anybody. The participants include a Foundation employee (Greg Kohs will be pleased, since I suspect this might actually create an avenue for legal liability for the Foundation, open them to suit, and possibly even undermine their Section 230 defense), two members of ArbCom (neither of whom recused in the case against Durova) and another person with Checkuser. The full list can be found at Wikipedia Review.
I'm especially bothered by the failure of the two arbitrators to recuse from Durova's case, although really they couldn't actually do so because it would have exposed them as collaborators. And while one of them was known to me to be a snake, the other one was someone I had considered reasonable in the past. Such a sad situation.
I said some time ago that I hold the Arbitration Committee in contempt and give no credence to their findings, decrees, or edicts. I've added to this by formally revoking my consent to the governance of the Committee. The Committee may huff and puff all it likes; its output remains a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound of fury, signifying nothing" (with apologies to the Great Bard). Ban me if you want. It won't matter; you cannot regain your honor by banning people who point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
I'm especially bothered by the failure of the two arbitrators to recuse from Durova's case, although really they couldn't actually do so because it would have exposed them as collaborators. And while one of them was known to me to be a snake, the other one was someone I had considered reasonable in the past. Such a sad situation.
I said some time ago that I hold the Arbitration Committee in contempt and give no credence to their findings, decrees, or edicts. I've added to this by formally revoking my consent to the governance of the Committee. The Committee may huff and puff all it likes; its output remains a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound of fury, signifying nothing" (with apologies to the Great Bard). Ban me if you want. It won't matter; you cannot regain your honor by banning people who point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
Despite the excitement it's doubtless creating at Wikipedia Review, Durova's investigations list never really got off the ground (barely two dozen discussion threads, and few with any content) and the block of !! wasn't even discussed there. It wasn't, as far as I can tell, discussed anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI was there largely to forestall anything rash happening; unfortunately, didn't work.
Publish the list archives, then.
ReplyDeletehear hear.
ReplyDeleteIt surprises me the extent to which the 'nothing ever happened' defense is being tried - to say 'a 75 min. block was duly overturned' is an accurate precis of events is either playing dumb, or not playing.
It will be interesting to see if community pressure actually can instigate change - I'd hope so.
I think that FrankenGiano should win an award for the most AWESOME word in history.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very nice trolling, but the omissions speak volumes.
ReplyDeleteIf there actually was anything damning beyond the initial e-mail, I would imagine whomever's leaking things would've leaked it by now. Where is the proof anyone noted Durova's email, or cared?
Second, the email itself didn't ask anyone's views on a block, nor did it suggest a block was imminent.
Third, the email in question was apparently on the other list (cyberstalking) and not this "investigations" list. I'm not on either so I can't verify that, but no one has demonstrably contradicted either assertion.
Of course, this makes for very little drama, and we can't have that.
So who are the 5 sleuthers who responded either enthusiasticly or positively to Durova's evidence? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Lawrence_Cohen]
ReplyDeleteThat is the response to Lawrence Cohen's question at the Arb Com elections.
ReplyDeleteThe most damning aspect of all of this is that a $14 million company called Wikia, Inc. is hosting a private list for chosen Wikipedians and even at least one representative of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation itself, who are encouraged to secretly discuss the identities and IP addresses of whomever they feel are suspicious or disruptive to the project. What makes it absolutely reprehensible is that the WMF has filed federal Form 990 documents attesting that there are no management relationships between Wikia and the Foundation. Now we see this evidence that finally proves those forms to bear false witness. The IRS will be investigating this soon.
ReplyDeleteIt wasnt the investigations list that caused these problems. But that list is/was still a problem in its own right.
ReplyDeleteKelly Martin is TROLLING in her own blog, is she Mackensen? I suppose you are the snake she referred to. Perhaps I've got it wrong, but if you and JPGordon were the two on the list, it's doubtless you. Typical Wikipedian; rather than ignore "trolling", you have to come around and "shout it from the rooftops", to borrow a particularly clueless and hypocritical phrase from JzG.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Brown, it's unfortunate that you were among those who were too cowardly to tell Durova to back off, if I'm reading your comments correctly. But at least you make no excuses for yourself, unlike "we-never-thought-she-would-block -the-trolling-sockpuppet" Mackensen.
I'm still floored that 2+ (how many is it, really?) arbs were involved in such nasty, nasty attacks on other editors (according to Alison and Thatcher) and never said a word. Then again, considering the type of person I am, as indicated by my mildly apalled reaction (mildly because it's just the internet after all), it's no wonder I'm banned.
There are two forces at work here, and it's not always easy to distinguish which is which. One is the genuinely power-drunk people who treat the lesser folks with disdain, the other is what you alluded to in an earlier post, i.e. people in different places along the autistic spectrum, many of whom just demand peace and quiet, because they're scared of the so-called drama. The latter is understandable and since Wikipedia is a nerd-magnet, it should learn how to get around it. The former is laughable. Try saying "I'm an admin/arbcommer/subscriber to sooper-sikkrit-l on Wikipedia and you suck" to a hoodlum in the street, and you might learn who has the power.
ReplyDeleteSo, one (dealing with groups of various kinds of nerds) is a puzzle, and the other (dealing with people who think having power on Wikipedia is a good replacement for being a failed nobody in real life) is a matter for pity. But if left unchecked, the combination has the potential to screw up a magnificent project, and that would be a shame.
Giano's problem is that he's really scaring the emotionally challenged nerds, and maybe there's some value in trying to contain that. After all, somebody has to do the jobs that are too boring for bots, and you don't want to scare away the voluntary workforce. Though, if Wikipedia had wiser leadership, he Giano (and his ideas) would have been coopted long ago, obviating the need for this crap.
It is just to horrific to contemplate. The valuable hard working productive person, standing up for truth, justice and openness getting sanctioned by the arbcom. While Jimbo and his hoard of incompetent nincompoops call for his head.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could say that the real world doesn't work this way, but alas, too often it does.
This would be incredibly funny, if it wasn't so true.
Hey Kelly, how active is jimbo at arbcom. For example, does he get on the mailing list and suggest things for specific cases, like "ban Giano"?
ReplyDeleteSometimes the best thing for a fair/just society to do with a dissident is co-opt him or her. It often mellows out the dissident and improves the society at the same time. We shall soon see if that happens with Giano. I suspect he will get a lot more votes than many people expect.
ReplyDeleteScott:
ReplyDeleteNot cowardly, I don't believe; ineffective in this case I'll admit to.
The UK Register has just posted their in-depth story on the Durova kerfuffle...
ReplyDeleteSecret mailing list rocks Wikipedia