User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!

Since there appears to be a large amount controversy about my comments related to the Durova matter, I thought that a clarification was in order. My initial statement in regard to Cla68's question was not intended to be a general statement about every detail of the matter. To be clear: I have not, and am not supporting the block of !!. Durova should have asked around to other editors especially editors who had interacted with the editor in question. Furthermore, when the block was overturned admins who understandably tried to get discussion to stop (to preserve !!'s privacy) tokk a very heavy handed method where they could have simply said "there's a privacy issue here, please let's not discuss it on Wiki" and sent details via email to any respected user who brought the matter up (the fact that the initial attempt to stop discussion was to protect !! seems to be forgotten). That said, the fact that a trusted user's privacy was irretrievably damaged is a serious cause for serious concern. The argument can be made that the speed at which the block was overturned constitutes a demonstration of how well the system works but I find that argument unpersuasive due to the permanent damage resulting.

My earlier answer to Cla68's comment was primarily in regards to the mailing list and was possibly more harsh and absolute than it should have been due in part because I was getting very sick of the entire matter (especially due to the literally hundreds of emails about this on wikien-l). People discuss matters by email all the time, and I am myself on multiple informal cc lists of Wikipedians. Most of those emails are prosaic material. One of those email lists seems to have more in the way of arguing of politics and ranting about how our days went than anything else. So email lists by themselves are not bad entities. Furthermore, small email lists are often necessary. For example, in dealing with sensitive BLP related issues, editors working on the topic will sometimes discuss things by email when putting the material on the talk page could be problematic. I at least when adding BLP material back in even with new sourcing will try often to discuss via email with the person who removed the earlier version and try to get their opinion before I take any action. Furthermore, finding out who exactly was on the list in question doesn't accomplish anything; by all descriptions many people were on the list and never commented and by another description a large fraction of the list traffic consisted of a small group of editors arguing and flamewarring. Thus, Cla68's question simply furthered unnecessary drama. Now, Cla68 had asked what I thought about the situation as a whole, I would likely have responded with a longer, more thought-out answer like this one.

So far, I've probably made some of the people voting oppose think twice. Now, I'm going to say the part that might net me even more oppose votes: Secret evidence is sometimes necessary. That's unfortunate but true. For example, A while ago there was a certain banned user who cares a lot about a certain topic. That user liked to use a certain word that is not at all a common one in modern English. Twice I saw users show up in the same topic who seemed to know wiki-markup and used the rare word that the banned user used. In both cases, I requested a checkuser and checkuser confirmed that the we were dealing with a sock of the banned user. Now, there's no way to say what that word was in public without that user having an opportunity to know to avoid it. Durova's use of secret evidence was not a problem although obviously use of secret evidence should be kept to the absolute minimum. The real problems were a) the lack of evidence that the user even if a returning user had any malicious intentions (I've seen multiple people try to start afresh and do a good job) b) the lack of evidence connecting the user in question to any specific banned user c) the lack of consultation with editors who knew !! before the block was made. The problem here was not the use secret evidence. The problem was that the evidence was not nearly strong enough to justify a block.

So to summarize my viewpoint; the block of !! was bad and poorly thought out. It demonstrated serious systemic problems. However, knowing precisely who was on the email list will not accomplish anything. I hope this clarifies my position on this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)