On Dec 1, 2007 12:27 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:46 -0500, Anthony wikimail@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_notice...
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.