[WikiEN-l] WR's secret forum and list

Sun Dec 9 22:19:00 UTC 2007

Of course we should be concerned about bad behavior about WR, but I don't see
the issues as being connected in any relevant form. Indeed, I would be 
inclined
to argue that the fact that Wikipedians demand so much transparency that they
get into a huff at issues like this is a credit to them (again, I don't think
the list issue was a big deal but this should be kept in mind). Furthermore,
Wikipedia acting in a fashion at all similar to Wikipedia Review is almost by
itself a cause for concern.

Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com>:

> Despite the recent interest in secret lists this message from
> Blissyu2/Zordrac appears to have gone unnoticed.
>
> Blissyu2 describes the existence of a secret forum on Wikipedia Review,
> which he belongs to, that has been used to coordinate attacks on
> Wikipedia and its editors. On his blog he described an even more secret
> mailing list. (The entry has since been deleted). While he appears
> contrite, the actual players in the coordinated attack have not
> expressed any regret that I'm aware of.
>
> Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than we
> are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia? Certainly good
> intentions with bad execution can mess up a project, but bad intentions
> with good execution are much worse. Wikipedia needs and benefits from
> the criticism of those who want to see it improved. It isn't improved by
> the plots of those who want to see it destroyed.
>
> Will Beback
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [WikiEN-l] Private Musings scam
> Date:     Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:28:32 +0900
> From:     u/n - adrianm <adrianm at octa4.net.au>
> Reply-To:     English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> To:     wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Dear good people of Wikipedia,
>
> I am writing here as the owner of Wikipedia Review, and
> also as someone who would like to apologise to you, the
> Wikipedia community, in addition to the Wikipedia Review
> community, for some actions that a member of our forum,
> Kato, performed recently, which relate to various other
> topics discussed on Wikipedia, surrounding the user name
> Private Musings, the administrator JzG, and the article
> and person Robert Black.
>
> First and foremost let me say that I do not approve of
> what Kato did.  I was so angry about what he did that I
> stood up to it, and Somey, who is managing the forum,
> decided to give me a "mandatory holiday" over it, and
> right now as we speak we are negotiating as to whether I
> will just take my forum back and clean up this whole mess,
> or whether he will do it and I won't have to.  Needless to
> say this entire incident created more problems on
> Wikipedia Review than it did on Wikipedia.  However, I
> would like to state that this was done by one person and
> one person alone - Kato - and should not be seen to
> reflect the opinions and views of people who use Wikipedia
> Review as a whole.
>
> I wrote on my blog about this incident here:
> http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!892.entry
>
> Put simply, Kato was trying to hurt SlimVirgin and
> Wikipedia as a whole through some well-placed lies.  The
> entire thing was a set up.  Kato abused Wikipedia Review's
> trusted members forum, and his newly appointed position as
> moderator in doing this.  And I believe that it was
> actually done with an aim for him to try to take over
> Wikipedia Review.  Certainly, his actions prior to doing
> this were consistent with this aim, when he attacked a
> number of high profile members in relation to the "child
> grooming" issue.  He has succeeded wonderfully, too, as
> Wikipedia Review is absolutely shattered thanks to this
> issue, with nobody really being able to make heads or
> tails of it, and to this day they still refuse to openly
> discuss what Kato did (instead they are discussing my
> complaining about Kato and various conspiracy theories
> about what my secret agenda was, since they refuse to
> accept that Kato actually did something wrong here).
>
> Quite frankly I am disgusted at this.  We at Wikipedia
> Review have always prided ourselves on being "the good
> guys", who expose lies and always tell the truth.  In this
> incident, we became "the bad guys", who lied to you (and
> to ourselves) and who then had to have our lies exposed by
> you guys over there at Wikipedia.  What is the point of
> having a forum to expose lies if we are the ones making up
> the lies?
>
> And while I haven't been fond of SlimVirgin for a long
> time, and perhaps we could suggest that a few people who
> probably deserve to be hurt did get hurt in this, the
> amount of innocent bystanders who got hurt is far too
> many, and attacking a group, hurting innocent people along
> the way to hopefully perhaps hurting someone who in your
> opinion deserves it is the wrong way to go about things.
>
> A number of people on Wikipedia who had nothing to do with
> any of this were banned, and they are completely innocent
> of all wrongdoings.  I don't know if anyone on Wikipedia
> can take the time to wade through this to figure out who
> was innocent and who was not.  Because of the sheer level
> and complexity of Kato's lies, realistically its probably
> not even possible to do this, and I understand the idea of
> banning people "just in case".
>
> I can offer no reassurances that Wikipedia Review are
> going to clean everything up, because right now I am
> standing here as someone who got banned from my own forum,
> and if I do take it back, then the whole place may well
> fall apart (that is the threat I have been given to try to
> suggest to me that I shouldn't go in and take my forum
> back).  Right now most people on there are refusing to
> accept the truth of the situation, and are instead
> insisting that this whole thing was my set up.  That Kato
> didn't actually bully anyone, didn't actually set anyone
> up, and that the whole thing was my fault for making
> "unfounded accusations" against Kato.
>
> I just want to reassure everyone here that that is not
> what Wikipedia Review is meant to be about.  We are meant
> to be there to make Wikipedia accountable, to discuss the
> various issues with the site, to make sure that people are
> aware of the various problems and to educate people.  This
> whole incident goes further against what Wikipedia Review
> stands for than anything else in its 2 year history.  This
> is not who we are.  And if I have anything to do with it,
> this is not who we will become.
>
> I know that a number of admins have offered to let me back
> on Wikipedia over this, for showing integrity, and have
> wanted me to betray people over at Wikipedia Review.  But
> I am not going to do that.  If my Wikipedia ban is to be
> reviewed, it should be on its merits.  No, of course my
> ban wasn't fair and no of course it doesn't have any
> legitimacy.  But that doesn't mean that I am going to
> betray all that I have worked for just to get back in.  I
> have more integrity than that.  I would rather be
> somewhere for the right reasons, and to do things in the
> right way.
>
> Again, I would like to apologise to everyone who got hurt
> over this, and all of the Kato-inspired drama that this
> created, in the mailing list, on AN/I, and everywhere
> else.
>
> And for the record, I do think that Private Musings is an
> abusive account.  But they should be exposed legitimately,
> not in this way.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Adrian, owner of Wikipedia Review
>
> Wikipedia Review username: Blissyu2
> Wikipedia username: Zordrac
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>