Risker wrote:
Will, without being offensive here, I am hesitant to consider Blissyu2 as a very reliable source. Though I have no doubt "stuff" is always going on at WR, the mere fact that they "indefinitely blocked" him some time ago casts a shadow of a doubt on everything he says (just as a similar Wikipedia action casts a shadow).
And I am serious about the issues of "privacy," there are several prominent Wikipedians even as I speak editing on a proposed policy that would essentially forbid any type of copy posting of messages from "private" emails, websites, mailing lists and other documents - and thus would make such information unshareable with the community as a whole. In fact, I believe you were one of them, Will. Perhaps you should reconsider your position and add that to the discussion.
I'll also point out that there are several prominent Wikipedians who have membership there, including at least three current Arbcom members and several administrators. None of them have reported concerns to the community as a whole.
It's certainly possible that Blissyu2 is lying.
I do object to posting private correspondence. I don't object to folks reporting the general gist of the comments.
It's not clear if the "prominent Wikipedians" are subscribed to the mailing list that Blissyu2 mentioned, which was apparently reserved for only the most trusted individuals.