On 12/8/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am glad to see Alec laying his cards on the table here.
Ouch! Well, I don't know how to take this, per se, other than to apologize for inadvertant toe-stepping. Granted, I wasn't unaware that some toes were getting tender, but I didn't realize what large and influencial toes they were.
-- Reading you email, I get the feeling like you feel like this whole issue was manufacture by malcontents-- but really, all I and other concerned editors have done is reeped the seeds of confusion sown by Durova's own words.
Durova was quite clear that she had consulted with other "sleuths" and that she had received "enthusiastic" endorsements. I didn't concoct the theory that there was extensive collaboration-- Durova cited that collaboration to justify her actions. When it turned out that whatever group had collaborated in the !! was, essentially, smoking crack, I honestly thought I could help the project out by asking pointed questions to try to determine who the amorphous assortment was.
Similarly, I didn't create the idea of a 'list, the existence of which is unknown', I just quoted Durova. Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known. I honestly thought it would be useful to the project to know what forum was involved, and I thought it would be helpful to ask pointed questions on that subject.
Again, when I suggested the list had been used to collaborate, again, I'm just quoting what Durova herself seems to confirm. PrivateMusings asked if there has been any off-wiki collaboration, Durova cites PM's query as evidence that "they" don't know about the list. You needed be of any conspiratorial bent to somehow suspect that, in Durova's mind at least, some "list they don't know exists" is connected to "off-wiki collaboration". Durova's the one who privately answered PM's query by referring to the list-- not me.
Look at it from my point of view, Jimbo. In the leaked "secret evidence" email, Durova certainly 'appears' to have claimed there is some list, somewhere, that was secret, that was being used for collaboration.
I mean, we can all agree that is how things certain appear from an outside vantage point, right? That's what all the fuss is about.
Durova didn't lose her bit for a 75 mins "oops" that she herself corrected, after all. She didn't drop out of the election because she accidently hit the wrong button, and Mercury didn't get 67 oppose votes in less than five hours because he just accidently supported a bad block. These things occurred because there was a very real concern about how this block was made, who discussed it, where it was discussed, what they said about it, and what similar discussions have taken place.
From my point of view, that was a problem, and I just wanted to lend a
hand to those who wanted it solved-- a group of people that, judging from the RFC and the election results, is quite massive. I didn't create the problem, I didn't manufacture it, I didn't even uncover it-- I just found it lying here, and thought I'd lend a hand at solving it. And once I shut up about the problem (which I will do at the conclusion of this email) , the concerns of the community won't leave with me--- they'll still exist, until they are either answered or forgotten. --
To somebody who has been "in the loop" at all points, it may look like transparency isn't a concern, because you forget how much was unknown.
First the reason for the !! block was secret. Then some details about the reasons came out, but the specific the evidence was secret. Then the general nature of the evidence was revealed, but the email was secret. Then the email was leaked, but it was oversighted to try to keep it secret. Then the email was mirrored, and the list referred to in it was secret. Then the name of the cyberstalking list came out, but the "other" list was secret. Then the investigations list came out, but the membership was secret. Then the membership lists were leaked, but the discussions were still secret. The "fives sleuths" are still secret, or else Durova's fabrication of them is still secret.
I discovered this bruhaha only at the end-- I personally was only involved in the last few of those steps, But looking over the record, it's clear that at every step, it was like pulling teeth.
I doubt a desysopping would have occured if Durova had just said uprfont : Me, Jimbo, and n number of other admins are all part of a private, heretofore unknown, "Cyberstalking" email list where we discuss how to identify perpetators of cyberstalking. Two weeks ago, I sent out this email full of evidence against !!-- here's a copy of that email. In response, five admins, named a b c d and e, wrote me back. They enthusiastically endorsing the block of !!, and here's a copy of their reasoning.
If that had happened, would peope have assembled pitchforks and torches and demanded a desysopping of Durova? I doubt it. But all the cloak and dagger-- secret lists and secret evidence and secret sleuths-- that's what caused the unrest.
And the unrest is still there. Because when every step is like pulling teeth, people naturally assume there's a few teeth left unpulled.
Now if you (Jimbo) genuinely believe the community has no concerns about transparency and that there never were any secret lists, secret collaborations, or secret sleuths-- well, hopefully you're right, and you of course should know the community far far better than me, so hopefully they're no problem then.
I can only say, in my defense, from where _I_ sat-- knowing only what had been made public and looking over RFC, RFArs, and ArbcomElection Results-- it looked like there was a very big problem, and great concern among the community. . I did my best to get to the bottom of it for the community. I actually assumed that except for a few bad apples, practically everyone would appreciate the attempt, but in the end, it seems quite a lot of people would rather some questions be left unanswered, or at least, unasked, or at least, not asked by me in the manner and form I've been asking them. I have officially been told to shut the fuck up, I shall do so now.
We'll just have to live with the fact that we'll never know who all endorsed the block of !!, what forum they endorsed it in, and what similar actions they've collaboratively endorsed, or whether Durova made the whole thing up.
I think it would have been better for the project for to have gotten to the bottom of it-- to find out just who endorsed what, when then endorsed it, where they endorsed it, why they endorsed it, and what else they've endorsed. Durova's RFC seemed to me to be a massive Request for Answers-- I would have thought it best to find the answers and publicize them But I'm just a two-bit article editor who can't even figure out how to save his Visio-created .PNGs into .SVGs-- who am I to argue about what's best for the project with the project's founder?
Alec