On 12/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why [doesn't] anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using weaselly innuendo to try to press their point?
I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.
First of all, Matt and Guy and Slim can't lie about something they can't possibly have known. The truth is, they have no clue whether the list was used to coordiante or not. Durova posted to the list about !! to the list-- what responses she got back through email, only Durova and her sleuths know. People can say "I didn't see any full-formed coordination", but they can't actually know there was no such coordination.
Secondly, there's no need to fixate just on the !! issue. The list had been running long before !!, and it was "high volume". It certainly seems that the Cyberstalking and the Investigations lists existed to cooridinate SOMETHING. What exactly were they coordinating, who knws-- but it's obvious people on it were talking about wikipedia, they weren't swapping recipes, running a support group, or investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Precisely which specfic incidents were discussed and were coordidnated-- that we can't say. Was that coordnation improper? That we cannot answer.
But obviously, there was some sort of coordination, and there was SOME reason that even the mere EXISTENCE of the lists were being kept secret-- rather than just keeping hte contents of the list private.
What could they have been coordinating? Who knows.
* !!'s block was one obvious candidate, because we know Durova sent out a "inviation to coordination" on the list. But t enough people have come forward to claim Durova's post was just an invitation to coordiation, and if an future coordination occurred (as Durova claims it did), that coordination took place off list.
* Miltopias block was almost certainly coordinated on the list-- Durova strongly implies it, and in fact Durova seems to practically gloat that the coordination over that went undiscovered.
* DanT has speculated that the pro-BADSITES group coordinated the edit wars at WP:NPA and Robert Black and Judd Bagley there, but I don't think he claims to know that it was coordinated, or if he just suspects it.
* I got an anonymous 'leak' some someone who was supposedly on the list who claims that the list was use to coordinate an edit-war at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that occurred in November-- I personally have no way of knowing if that's true or not. ----
If some of these speculations turn out to be false, it's regretable, but inevitable.
This is the risk you take when you run "lists that THEY don't know exist" --- when THEY (the community) finally do find out you've been running such lists, THEY are going to assume there's a reason THEY weren't allowed to about the existence of the lists.
"We just wanted a private place to share our feelings" isn't going to assauge the community's fear that the list was used to coordinate something, somewhere, somehow.
Whether that coordination is improper or broke the rules, who can say. That's another er risk of secret/private lists-- whatever evidence the participants have that might be used in their defense, they've elected to keep that evidence "secret"-- which only contributes to suspicion that something was rotten in Denmark.
If it's all one big misunderstanding, if the lists really weren't used for anything inappropriate ever, I'd suggest making the archives as public as possible, redacting on only the truly private info-- the easiest way to show people you've got nothing to hide is to stop hiding stuff.
Alec
On Dec 5, 2007 10:10 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
This is the risk you take when you run "lists that THEY don't know exist" --- when THEY (the community) finally do find out you've been running such lists, THEY are going to assume there's a reason THEY weren't allowed to about the existence of the lists.
Given the context, it was obvious that Durova's THEY meant "Wikipedia Review".
-Matt
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:10:34 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.
No, I think you should shut the fuck up. You clearly have *absolutely no idea* about the list, its history, its constitution, or what went on on the list, and this despite your having been told most of it numerous times; this leads me to believe that you are sitting there with your fingers in your ears chanting "laa laa I'm not listening" unless you hear something that supports your wrong interpretation, a wrong interpretation whose complete wrongness has been pointed out to you by just about everybody who (unlike you) has any detailed knowledge of the situation.
Your wilful ignorance is, by this point, functionally indistinguishable from deliberate trolling.
Come back when you've had kooks calling your wife at home because you dared to interfere in their agenda-promotion.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 2:23 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I think you should shut the fuck up.
This is getting incredibly old. Can't everyone just agree to disagree and move on? Please?
Michel
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I think you should shut the fuck up. You clearly have
This is unsuitable phrasing for this list ... infuriating as it undoubtedly is.
Guy, please don't do this again. Alec, please stop repeating yourself.
Next topic, anyone?
- d.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:50:07 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is unsuitable phrasing for this list ... infuriating as it undoubtedly is.
Sorry, you are right of course. "Handles trolls badly", I think it was. Never a truer word.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:50:07 +0000, "David Gerard" wrote:
This is unsuitable phrasing for this list ... infuriating as it undoubtedly is.
Sorry, you are right of course. "Handles trolls badly", I think it was. Never a truer word.
Better still, if, in your opinion, they are trolls try not feeding them hallucinogenic drugs.
Ec
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:35:12 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Better still, if, in your opinion, they are trolls try not feeding them hallucinogenic drugs.
Ray, I am sorry, but I really hate it when people tell lies, and continue to tell lies after they have been told by people who (unlike them) know the truth, that they are indeed lies.
It is a character flaw.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 12:10 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The list...existed to cooridinate SOMETHING. What exactly were they coordinating, who knws-- but it's obvious people ...weren't swapping recipes, running a support group, or investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Yeah, I think that's the real problem. I would like to propose that until such time as we have a definitive answer to her fate, this list should be used exclusively for that topic.
David, is it possible to filter posts to WikiEn-L, and block everything that's not about Amelia Earhart? Please?
Guettarda wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 12:10 AM, Alec Conroy wrote:
The list...existed to cooridinate SOMETHING. What exactly were they coordinating, who knws-- but it's obvious people ...weren't swapping recipes, running a support group, or investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Yeah, I think that's the real problem. I would like to propose that until such time as we have a definitive answer to her fate, this list should be used exclusively for that topic.
David, is it possible to filter posts to WikiEn-L, and block everything that's not about Amelia Earhart? Please?
It sounds as though you are suggesting that a mention of Amelia Earhart could be used as an antidote to Godwin's law.
Ec
I am glad to see Alec laying his cards on the table here.
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 12/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why [doesn't] anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using weaselly innuendo to try to press their point?
I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.
First of all, Matt and Guy and Slim can't lie about something they can't possibly have known. The truth is, they have no clue whether the list was used to coordiante or not. Durova posted to the list about !! to the list-- what responses she got back through email, only Durova and her sleuths know. People can say "I didn't see any full-formed coordination", but they can't actually know there was no such coordination.
So we now have established that the list was not secret and was not used directly to coordinate the !! block. So Alec shifts gears with a new allegation: maybe people responded *privately* to Durova's post with support.
Note well, this is not an argument against ad hoc side mailing lists, this is an argument against mailing lists, period. Actually, it is an argument against anyone posting anything anywhere, public or private, since who knows, people might respond privately by email.
Secondly, there's no need to fixate just on the !! issue. The list had been running long before !!, and it was "high volume". It certainly seems that the Cyberstalking and the Investigations lists existed to cooridinate SOMETHING. What exactly were they coordinating, who knws-- but it's obvious people on it were talking about wikipedia, they weren't swapping recipes, running a support group, or investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Uh, Alec, I think this has been explained to you multiple times now.
The list was an outgrowth of an ad hoc mailing list to discuss the complex and painful issue of people being cyberstalked as a result of their participation on Wikipedia.
But obviously, there was some sort of coordination, and there was SOME reason that even the mere EXISTENCE of the lists were being kept secret-- rather than just keeping hte contents of the list private.
The existence of the lists was never a secret.
- Miltopias block was almost certainly coordinated on the list--
Durova strongly implies it, and in fact Durova seems to practically gloat that the coordination over that went undiscovered.
As the blocking admin, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Miltopia block was not "coordinated" on the list. I have no idea what that would even mean in this context.
"We just wanted a private place to share our feelings" isn't going to assauge the community's fear that the list was used to coordinate something, somewhere, somehow.
I think it makes sense to the community that some people have been badly hurt, to the point that the police have had to be called. That may mean nothing to you, but you do not speak for the entire community here.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am glad to see Alec laying his cards on the table here.
Alec Conroy wrote:
"We just wanted a private place to share our feelings" isn't going to assauge the community's fear that the list was used to coordinate something, somewhere, somehow.
I think it makes sense to the community that some people have been badly hurt, to the point that the police have had to be called. That may mean nothing to you, but you do not speak for the entire community here.
I doubt that Alec is some sort of evil fiend who doesn't care if people get harassed. I think his main point here is not that nothing should be done to help those who have been harassed, but that helping those who have been harassed is not the sole consideration that has to be taken into account. The concerns of other segments of the editing community need to be addressed as well.
Nobody speaks for the _entire_ community. That's why we need to listen to each others' concerns and find compromises to hopefully satisfy all of them.
On 08/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 12/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, Matt and Guy and Slim can't lie about something they can't possibly have known. The truth is, they have no clue whether the list was used to coordiante or not. Durova posted to the list about !! to the list-- what responses she got back through email, only Durova and her sleuths know. People can say "I didn't see any full-formed coordination", but they can't actually know there was no such coordination.
So we now have established that the list was not secret and was not used directly to coordinate the !! block. So Alec shifts gears with a new allegation: maybe people responded *privately* to Durova's post with support.
This is not a new allegation. It follows logically from statements from Durova, Jay and others, too.
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
On Dec 9, 2007 4:20 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The problem was not that you assumed the cyberstalking list had been used to co-ordinate the block, but the fact that for days you loudly insisted that it *had* been used to do just that, despite multiple statements to the contrary by multiple members of the list. The first time you insisted SHOW ME THE E-MAILS was not disruptive, but when you did it again and again, day after day, you were effectively saying, over and over again, that these people were lying. To use your metaphor, "toes were tender" not because you stepped on them by accident once, but because you kept jumping up and down on them after their owners politely asked you to stop. Stop calling people liars, stop inventing fantasies about their actions that have no relation to the reality they know, and they will stop being "tender".
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.
No, Alec, you actually created the problem; you, and a small number of others. You kept insisting the cyberstalking (or investigations) list had been used to co-ordinate the block; screaming about it. Others who were doing the same went to disreputable tabloids to repeat this (and other) falsehoods as if they were fact. A non-existent block co-ordination is not a "problem". A group of editors who deliberately sully Wikipedia's reputation with calumny in the service of yellow journalism are the problem.
But all the cloak and dagger-- secret lists and secret evidence and secret sleuths-- that's what caused the unrest.
Again, it was the agitation about "secret lists" that "caused the unrest". You *knew* the phrase "secret list" was deliberately provocative, and were told as much many times, yet insisted on using the phrase anyway, because of its sensationalist connotations.
Because when every step is like pulling teeth, people naturally assume there's a few teeth left unpulled.
Yeah, that reminded me of the teeth pulling scene with Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman in The Marathon Man:
Szell: Is it safe?... Is it safe? Babe: You're talking to me? Szell: Is it safe? Babe: Is what safe? Szell: Is it safe? Babe: I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you something's safe or not, unless I know specifically what you're talking about. Szell: Is it safe? Babe: Tell me what the "it" refers to. Szell: Is it safe? Babe: Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it. Szell: Is it safe? Babe: No. It's not safe, it's... very dangerous, be careful.
I did my best to get to the bottom of it for the community... 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.
You keep assuming there's an "it" to be gotten to the bottom of. That's why *you* are the problem, not non-existent co-ordination of blocks.
On Dec 10, 2007 8:47 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 4:20 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The problem was not that you assumed the cyberstalking list had been used to co-ordinate the block, but the fact that for days you loudly insisted that it *had* been used to do just that, despite multiple statements to the contrary by multiple members of the list. The first time you insisted SHOW ME THE E-MAILS was not disruptive, but when you did it again and again, day after day, you were effectively saying, over and over again, that these people were lying. To use your metaphor, "toes were tender" not because you stepped on them by accident once, but because you kept jumping up and down on them after their owners politely asked you to stop. Stop calling people liars, stop inventing fantasies about their actions that have no relation to the reality they know, and they will stop being "tender".
Jay, I can only suppose you've stopped reading Alec's emails, which is fine - I'm sure a lot of people have. Unfortunately, you haven't stopped replying to them. He quite clearly laid out the sequence of what was initially obscured and then leaked/clarified; you ignored it magisterially. Your caricature of his behaviour is unhelpful, misleading and inappropriate, and I suggest you stop it now. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, remain silent, as most of us have been doing. Alec has moved well beyond claiming that there was any discussion on-list, which was what was specifically denied. We all did that, weeks ago now. It is a pity you haven't stopped denying it.
My main concern in all this (which I think is echoed elsewhere clearly and loudly) is that people have been taking 'on-wiki' actions without the appropriate level of 'on-wiki' discussion. I think we would all agree that a group (say 4 or 5) of 'senior' editors forming opinions privately, and then each taking action in the matter at hand at the very least is behaviour which probably requires great care to avoid becoming problematic.
Why do you keep repeating these things as if they're facts? Do you think it helps the tenor of the conversation to continually post unproven (and, in fact, repudiated) allegations, and then claim that they represent a "problematic" issue about which "great care" must be taken?
This, for example, has not, as far as I know, been repudiated; either in the case of !!'s block or in the case of PM's block. In fact, in the case of PM's block, it was quite clearly confirmed. (Jimbo says there was no discussion of Miltopia's block off-wiki in advance.) Your repeated conflation of Alec's carefully worded statement with "no discussion on the list" is problematic.
RR
RR
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
(Jimbo says there was no discussion of Miltopia's block off-wiki in advance.)
Did he? I thought he said Miltopia's block wasn't "coordinated" in advance, and then followed that up with a comment that he didn't even know what the word coordinated meant in this particular case.
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:47 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 4:20 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The problem was not that you assumed the cyberstalking list had been used to co-ordinate the block, but the fact that for days you loudly insisted that it *had* been used to do just that, despite multiple statements to the contrary by multiple members of the list. The first time you insisted SHOW ME THE E-MAILS was not disruptive, but when you did it again and again, day after day, you were effectively saying, over and over again, that these people were lying. To use your metaphor, "toes were tender" not because you stepped on them by accident once, but because you kept jumping up and down on them after their owners politely asked you to stop. Stop calling people liars, stop inventing fantasies about their actions that have no relation to the reality they know, and they will stop being "tender".
Jay, I can only suppose you've stopped reading Alec's emails, which is fine - I'm sure a lot of people have. Unfortunately, you haven't stopped replying to them. He quite clearly laid out the sequence of what was initially obscured and then leaked/clarified; you ignored it magisterially. Your caricature of his behaviour is unhelpful, misleading and inappropriate, and I suggest you stop it now. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, remain silent, as most of us have been doing.
RR, I can only supposed you've stopped reading Alec's e-mails. Alec was still making these claims a couple of days ago, which is why Jimmy called him on it. In fact, according to his last e-mail "Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Did you notice that part about still not knowing if the block was co-ordinated on a Wikia list?
As for suggesting I stop responding on the topic, while the reason for your interest in ensuring that returning editors are not banned is obvious, nevertheless you are also not constrained to continue responding to e-mails on this topic. If you really want the discussion to end, direct your e-mails to Alec's posts, in which he continues to fight a valiant battle to preserve whatever shreds of the conspiracy theory he thinks he can still make stick.
Alec has moved well beyond claiming that there was any discussion on-list, which was what was specifically denied.
"Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Alec Conroy
We all did that, weeks ago now.
We all did? Odd; I didn't get that impression from the article in The Register. Perhaps it's not a reliable source, though, what do you think?
On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, I can only suppose you've stopped reading Alec's emails, which is fine - I'm sure a lot of people have. Unfortunately, you haven't stopped replying to them. He quite clearly laid out the sequence of what was initially obscured and then leaked/clarified; you ignored it magisterially. Your caricature of his behaviour is unhelpful, misleading and inappropriate, and I suggest you stop it now. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, remain silent, as most of us have been doing.
RR, I can only supposed you've stopped reading Alec's e-mails. Alec was still making these claims a couple of days ago, which is why Jimmy called him on it. In fact, according to his last e-mail "Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Did you notice that part about still not knowing if the block was co-ordinated on a Wikia list?
A couple of days ago? Where? What claim? And your paraphrase of the quote is inaccurate, and misleadingly out of context. The whole quote is "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." He is defending himself against the specific accusation which you are making; further, within context, it is clear to most people (probably the same people who to whom the !! 'evidence' email was clearly bogus) that he is talking about not till now having the vaguest idea what Durova was on about. That is not clear from your misrepresentation of the meaning and relevance of the quote, and this is precisely why I think you had best drop out of the conversation now, as you aren't helping.
As for suggesting I stop responding on the topic, while the reason for your interest in ensuring that returning editors are not banned is obvious, nevertheless you are also not constrained to continue responding to e-mails on this topic. If you really want the discussion to end, direct your e-mails to Alec's posts, in which he continues to fight a valiant battle to preserve whatever shreds of the conspiracy theory he thinks he can still make stick.
If you notice, I haven't responded to many emails on the topic recently. Your last few emails, however, have been so egregiously inaccurate that I rather felt constrained to suggest that you refrain from that sort of thing.
Alec has moved well beyond claiming that there was any discussion on-list, which was what was specifically denied.
"Whether it was an email list, a Wikipedia list, a Wikia list, or what-- that I have never known." Alec Conroy
See above. Irrelevant response.
We all did that, weeks ago now.
We all did? Odd; I didn't get that impression from the article in The Register. Perhaps it's not a reliable source, though, what do you think?
It is a reliable source. Reliable sources are sometimes mistaken. Experienced editors know that. Verifiability, not truth.
RR
On Dec 10, 2007 11:42 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
We all did? Odd; I didn't get that impression from the article in The Register. Perhaps it's not a reliable source, though, what do you think?
It is a reliable source. Reliable sources are sometimes mistaken. Experienced editors know that. Verifiability, not truth.
I think you're rather mistaken about reliable sources. The Register has a long-standing and deserved reputation of printing whatever it thinks it can get away with that's controversial, to increase their traffic. I don't think that's the definition of 'reliable'.
It's the equivalent of sourcing things to a celebrity gossip rag. We generally don't accept those as sources either.
-Matt
On Dec 10, 2007 2:42 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
As for suggesting I stop responding on the topic, while the reason for your interest in ensuring that returning editors are not banned is obvious, nevertheless you are also not constrained to continue responding to e-mails on this topic. If you really want the discussion to end, direct your e-mails to Alec's posts, in which he continues to fight a valiant battle to preserve whatever shreds of the conspiracy theory he thinks he can still make stick.
If you notice, I haven't responded to many emails on the topic recently. Your last few emails, however, have been so egregiously inaccurate that I rather felt constrained to suggest that you refrain from that sort of thing.
RR, your protestations would carry more weight if it weren't for the fact that people are still making these same claims, only minutes ago:
"Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant..."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087179.html
On Dec 10, 2007 8:31 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:42 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
RR, your protestations would carry more weight if it weren't for the fact that people are still making these same claims, only minutes ago:
"Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant..."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087179.html
Keep your whines in one place, please Jayjg. Lucky you, I have responded to you where you originally posted.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 10, 2007 8:37 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:31 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:42 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
RR, your protestations would carry more weight if it weren't for the fact that people are still making these same claims, only minutes ago:
"Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant..."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087179.html
Keep your whines in one place, please Jayjg. Lucky you, I have responded to you where you originally posted.
Risker
Please endeavor to remain civil, we're trying to improve the level of discourse on wikien-l.
On Dec 8, 2007 9:15 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I am glad to see Alec laying his cards on the table here.
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 12/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
"We just wanted a private place to share our feelings" isn't going to assauge the community's fear that the list was used to coordinate something, somewhere, somehow.
I think it makes sense to the community that some people have been badly hurt, to the point that the police have had to be called. That may mean nothing to you, but you do not speak for the entire community here.
--Jimbo
Jimmy, I hope you can see that this was quite possibly the least effective and most Orwellian way to try to address harassment and stalking on Wikipedia. I think everyone can concede that this aberrant behaviour exists to some degree; however, right now it is managed on an ad hoc basis by people whose definition of "stalking" can include things as simple as unwanted messages on their talk pages.
In spite of some remaining uncertainty on my part, I will give the benefit of the doubt to those involved in the cyberstalking mailing list that its intentions were to provide support and brainstorm ideas about how to address harassment and real-life stalking that originates from Wikipedia interactions. So - instead of identifying and discussing a Wikipedia problem *on* Wikipedia, it was sequestered off the project. There was not even an indication that such a forum of discussion existed. Meanwhile, actual victims of stalking and harassment would have had no idea where to turn, other than perhaps to show up at ANI and hope that someone who was around would have the knowledge and ability to assist them in dealing with potentially very serious issues. The mailing list was not of use to them; first they would have had to find out about it, then request an invitation, then be approved...and only then would their case have been discussed. The decision to involve police in such incidents needs to be made very promptly, it cannot wait until perhaps a few days later when the list owner happens to get around to it.
Jimbo, serious harassment and stalking has been an issue since before I started here three years ago. It is part of the reason why my Wikipedia username and email are sequestered from all the rest of my online and real-life activity. It's time to take this seriously, and for the development of an on-wiki, skilled and knowledgeable group of admins who are willing to operate using their real names (for the purpose of police interaction) to genuinely provide assistance to users on this very serious subject. Consider this the Wikipedia equivalent of spousal abuse - the most effective action is to bring it out into the light and address it head on.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l