On Dec 1, 2007 12:27 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:46 -0500, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
In this case the publication of the email
served at least one other purpose, though. It served to bring to
public light the existence of two secret mailing lists and gave us all
at least a hint at the improper things which are occurring on those
mailing lists.
Well, kind of - the mailing lists had nothing like the purpose
represented, so actually what it did was to provide MOAR DRAMA
without shedding any actual light on anything whatsoever.
And it could have been done without publishing the actual contents
of the email; a proposal on evidence that "per email sent" a private
mailing list existed, would have served that purpose.
The continued misrepresentation of private as being synonymous with
secret is also a side effect of what Giano did.
I don't think private has to be synonymous with secret to call these
lists secret. In fact, I've said myself that I think there is a
difference between a private list and a secret list, and that I feel
these lists were both. The email itself says things like "The one
thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this."
and "Foremost, please keep mum!" And what is probably the smoking
gun, which has nothing directly to do with her libel of !!, is the
comment that "They [Wikipedia Review] don't know this list exists."
with a link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
What's at that diff? It's an edit by "PrivateMusings" saying
"Sorry
to perhaps be a little cynical, but could anyone above confirm if this
is being discussed elsewhere, perhaps IRC? The block notice, followed
by several 'supports' seemed to arrive somewhat quicker than the
concerned responses below. No biggie if this isn't the case, but if it
were, it would be healthy to disclose." That sure strongly implies to
me that "this list", the cyberstalking list, was in fact used to
coordinate Jimbo's block of "Miltopia" and the subsequent canvassing
of the ANI. "Durova" goes on in her email to say "So by the time
Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more
than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock
is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has
teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes."
Now, look, you can deny and say oh you have to assume good faith and
assume that every other email sent to the cyberstalking list was
completely different from this one and was talking about helping
victims of cyberstalking cope with their feelings or whatever, but you
can't use such handwaving on the actual email which was made public,
and you can't do so precisely because the entire email was made
public.