[WikiEN-l] Coordination on Secret/private lists

[jayjg]

On Dec 10, 2007 2:02 AM, Relata Refero <refero.relata at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 8:47 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2007 4:20 AM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/8/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at 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?