Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I've received this information from a verified Wikipedia editor. No, I'm not going to say if the person is an admin or not. I'm not saying anything about the person, other than that they said, "please, someone needs this to get out for the good of the project". Nuff said.

Yes, I checked to be sure it isn't a crank. I'm not stupid.

I don't know why they sent it to me. I've never spoken to the person before. But I intend to honor their trust.

Do with it what you will. Use it, ignore it, badmouth it. I didn't write it. I don't have a dog in this fight, really...

...beyond my normal disrespect for shady practices, of which this is sadly indicative of ubiquitousness.

Super Secret List No. 2 (a la JzG)

1. Cary Bass
2. Durova
3. FloNight
4. Gnangarra
5. Herby
6. Jonathan Hochman
7. JzG
8. Lar
9. Matthew Brown
10. Sarah Ewart
11. SlimVirgin

Please don't ask me who sent it. If someone at Wikipedia has serious concerns about such things, then tell me to whom the person who sent it to me should report, without negative ramifications. Then I will tell THEM to contact that person THEMSELVES.

I will not "out" the person. To anyone. Ever. Capiche? Thanks.

NOTE: This message has no relation to the "Kelly Martin's message of non-membership on soopersekrit lists"to about 24 hours ago. Wow - I am getting secret missives left and right these days! Makes me feel like Double-oh-DL, aka, 00DL

Posted by: everyking

You say this is the second list? Do you mean the investigation list that they say was spun-off from the cyberstalking list?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Presumably. Frankly, I haven't followed the on-wiki discussions about this. I did comment a bit on Piper's thread, but that's it.

I don't know why the person picked me to send it to, but it is them, and not an anonymous sending.

So yes, if the persons who sent it is correct (and it is a WP contributor of whose name I was aware - but to whom I had never before spoken directly) then it is the 2nd, said list.

It looks about right anyways.

Posted by: gomi

Wonderful and fascinating news -- yey another sub-cabal! But who are some of these folks: Gnangarra? Herby? And why are they slumming with the likes of JzG, Slimey, and Durova?

Gnangarra seems a more-or-less averagely-to-under-averagely-abusive Australian admin, and Herby (User:Herbythyme) just became an admin two weeks ago -- hardly enough time to become abusive!

Posted by: Proabivouac

There are Matthew Brown and JzG again, Wikipedia's in-house outers and attack farmers.

The presence of Cary Bass gives a line to the foundation. Lar, Matthew Brown and FloNight provide checkuser firepower, and the latter two a line to the Arbitration Committee. This would be a powerful list, whoever else was on it.

Posted by: Miltopia

Who sent it to you?

Look how many paranoid/two-faced people are on there. No surprise, they can't get enough real support on-wiki. It is so cowardly that these people are not willing to stick up for one another on wiki. My opinion of SlimVirgin drops more steeply every day. I used to think you WR regulars were way too caught up on her, to the point of useless hyperbole, but I"m starting to realize you're right about how shady she is.

I should've expected no less from FloNight, of course. What a terrible, terrible person.

I wonder why Jimbo wasn't on this one? If you ask me, if he wasn't on it, then he wasn't aware of it or he'd insist on being privy to its contents.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Read above, please.

Probably the person wants to avoid being hanged. After all, Bass is on the list, as is SV. THINK.

Even if I did say, what difference would that make? I could just as well be lying about that name. Or...

* Someone could say I made up the list. (Im lying, contributor fake, list is fake)
* Someone could say I was sent a list by a fake person. (I'm truthing, contributor fake, list fake)
* Someone could say I was sent the list by a real person who made it up (I'm truthing, contributor real, list fake)

Oh, the permutations.... who cares.

They sent it, I verified, I put it up.

It is that simple.

Posted by: Miltopia

I was just kidding :-)

It would be funny if you just made it up.

I hope this person will reveal themselves at some point though.

Posted by: guy

Herby is a long-time Wikimedian who is an admin on loads of other projects.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I saw this on http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/086135.html just now, for what it's worth:

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

No no no, Daniel, that's not the funny one, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/086094.html:

Jimbo had a prime opportunity to shoot down this sort of cabalism that longtime users and critics have been yelling about for years, and instead he dismisses it as "a good list."

Wow.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

His little list? Yo?

How was it in his hot little hands?

Pfff. This is all so grade school, and I do mean my annoyance with the original list members, of course, but I wish they'd get their act together and clean up shop. I don't mind them using WR, or even me, as a conduit, but make something of it people..... okay?

This is all a bit boring.

Posted by: The Joy

What happened to community trust and decency?

They must have been deleted in a MFD when we weren't looking!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

SO Not wow. Anytime Jimbo denies collusion, and cronyism (what is known as cabalism) he's not speaking saying what he thinks, or what is.

He is simply making press statements to counteract what he said in the Oct 2001 online discussion statement that he was "dictator" and that a select group, called a "cabal" would get special priviliges, "karma points' for loyalty. Jimbo talks out of both sides of his mouth (as well as other places).

Posted by: Poetlister

I just don't believe that Herby is involved. When I was attacked on WQ over my block, it was Herby who gave the best defence:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=499279

He has never faltered in his desire to get me unblocked.

Posted by: Miltopia

LOL


Jimbo's doulbespeak is intriguing to me. I honestly can't tell if it's calculated sneakiness or just interpersonal incompetence. Thoughts? I should start a poll...



EDIT: By "interpersonal incompetence" I mean just not knowing how to run a community, and not even realizing that he contradicts himself.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Hey, I didn't write it, I was just the messenger. But even if Herby helped you, what prevents Herby from being a counter cyber sleuth? Maybe Herby feels he was helping Slim, and other upset women, like our heroine-who-will-not-be-named (aka DUROVA), by doing this.

Doh! I was talking about why someone Poetlister thinks would be nice, would be on a cybersleuthing team.

Let me help you.

QUOTE

I honestly can't tell if it's calculated sneakiness or just interpersonal incompetence. Thoughts? I should start a poll...

Although

QUOTE

I honestly can't tell if it's calculated sneakiness or just interpersonal incompetence. Thoughts? I should start a poll...

Doesn't help matters.

Posted by: Miltopia

Aha! So it was a woman!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Who are you? Inspector Clouseau? You are reminding me of Durova.

That was my reply to poetlister, about Herby and why he might have been in such a squad.

Actually: It was Ms. Scarlett, with a candlestick in the drawing room.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Jimbo was on the Wikia "cyberstalking" list that was organized by Slim, from day one. However, JzG implies that Jimbo knew about this JzG "investigations list," and certainly Jimbo is comfortable with the idea behind it. The Wikia list was to discuss cyberstalking. The investigations list was designed to attack. It's an "attack list" or a BADLIST, if you will. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/086102.html:

But why quibble over which list is which, and who was on them? Just ban them all, starting with Jimbo. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact we need more of it.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Because THAT's' going to happen.

Q1: Can someone please elaborate on the nature of "attack" and "investigations"?

Q2: Attack what (who) and how?

Q3: If this team was so solid, then why were her recent 'targets' so off?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Reasonable questions. I guess WR should file a Freedom of Information request with the Foundation Board for copies of everything posted/sent on each list. Hey, if Bush is required by law to cough up the administration's emails, why not the Foundation Board?

Posted by: the fieryangel

I've been getting these kinds of messages too.

Get this: they know that there is a WR sekritforum too.

Why do DL and I get these.

Because we're not part of the WR sekritforum.

So, don't ask us for sources. It's much better this way, really.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I was actually asking for theories. I don't think we have a prayer of being told directly.

FOIA only applied to Federal Government institutions, I thought. Correct me if i'm wrong. Also to 501c3 non-profits?

To the Board? Most of them haven't a clue as to such things, including Wiki-en-l.



Did you get the same list? And if so, why did you not publish?

What sekrit WR forum? No one tells me anything.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I was making a moral argument, not a legal argument. I'm sure Jimbo would claim in his many speeches, if asked the question, that Wikipedia is completely open. Even Bush wouldn't claim this about his administration. There is arguably more hypocrisy at Wikipedia than there is in the Bush administration. (Well, alright, that's stretching things a bit, since there's no actual blood on Wikipedia's hands.)

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

As one of a few people in this thread who have been blocked due to super sekrit collusion, what makes these people think that this sort of thing is still okay? It essentially facilitates a type of cyberstalking, one that's possibly worse than some of the bullshit that they accuse others of.

It's completely beyond the pale.

Posted by: the fieryangel

That's why you're getting these things. Neither you nor I are part of the "sekrit forum" here and that's why we're getting this kind of information.

I didn't get this list, but I've been pointed to quite a few diffs in the last few days. People are working for us on the other side. They don't want any part of a "sekrit" organization.

Me thinks that you got Moreschi's diffs. He probably doesn't trust me because I have been nasty to him in the past. But I do think that he sincerely wants this to stop.

Moreschi, whatever I've said about you in the past, that's over. I respect somebody who's willing to give information like this, for the right reasons.

Posted by: tarantino

Herbythyme is an admin on en, wikiquote and commons, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AHerbythyme on meta. That would be useful for cross-eyed witch hunts.


fixed sp. per Daniel

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I think you mean "cross-site" witch hunts. Or did you mean "cross-eyed" witch hunts?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

FOIA is a statute, hence a legal, not a moral argument.
Of course. "Information wants to be free". So let it fly Jimbo!
I believe he has, made allusions that he's been utterly transparent, about various things, which of course wasn't, um, accurate.




If you are arrogantly always right, then the issue in question (how best to run an international online community, best brand of ice cream, which flashlight is coolest, whether someone should be removed for wanting transparency in a community) is irrelevant.




I didn't get any diffs. And I'm neither going to say who it was not, nor who it was. I was sent a list of names, and a 1-2 sentence note. Period.

Yesterday someone else, totally separate from this, sent me a message stating that KM was not on the list (Id seen something on her blog about it, and wrote that on here) so I corrected it.

No one has sent me any diffs at all. Any diffs I've references, I've looked up myself.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Okay, so it's not Moreschi. Just as well. Whoever it is, keep up the good work!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

JEEZ. I didnt' say it wasn't anyone. That's identification via disqualification.

I said I wasn't going to ID the person, so please stop playing such games.

I said i didn't get ANYONE'S DIFFS, i.e. ANY DIFFS from ANYONE.

Diffs would have involved work. I wasn't really that interested to look for such a list.

(ok, I made a few wild stabs, but I was bored. I was a bit bored, and did, but i didn't really care all that much at this point).

Ironic it got sent to me, hm?

Posted by: the fieryangel

1. I'm NOT a brit.

2. No reasonable person would ask you to "out" your sources. Journalists don't have to either, for that matter!

3. We're finally working with a faction at WP who wants this to stop. Let's just let it go with the flow.

4. It's important to mention that there are people here at WR who are not banned, who are not part of a "sekrit cabal" and who can keep their mouths shut. Let us do the dirty work. If we're not on WP, what can they do?

Posted by: Aloft

Here's the link, just for reference:
http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpinvestigations-l

Posted by: the fieryangel

Yes, but the owner used to be Guy Chapman, per Greg's webcites. Funny how that got changed, huh?

Oh, let's ask a direct question, since this is sort of like an online ouija board:

Were the contributions on both lists released under the GDFL or not?

That's an important matter to settle, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: Aloft

Oops, sorry, didn't see that it had been linked before.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Oops, sorry.

2. I'm NOT a journalist (just kidding)
Well, until such a time comes when people like that run the place, it will wait in resting.
Actually, they know nothing about whether I am in a sekrit cabal on WR or not. How could they? They simply trusted me, which in this kind of a situation is admirable.




Last time I looked, it said SV was the owner, not Guy

I dont see a list of names. I see a portal, with a password entry.

Oh, you can email them all by sending something here: wpinvestigations-l@wikia.com

Send them an email and give "them" (whoever they are) your opinion on secret lists.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Exposing Durova was important in the context of developing and illustrating by example a critique of WP. That said, I would hesitate being sucked into wiki-dramas and petty betrayals. The ability to grasp the issues involved only goes so far with a Giano or probably a even a !! . Nothing will be changed by a palace revolt or minor social networking repositioning. Giano is already making statements about how his actions demonstrate "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=14168&view=findpost&p=62709." This post-Durova embracing of "progressive" admins reminds me of Wikiabuse, and may have the same potential for WP admin manipulation and damage.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

This is actually quite naiive. Part of why Giano got support was that Durova had already made quite a public spectacle of herself, and this had already been well examined. Then Greg started the Durova for Arbcom store (now closed) that served to bring the lampoon to a state of high camp.



This is such an academic discussion. The only reason the GDFL matters is if there is a copyright dispute (which they lamely used as a pseudo-excuse for erasing Durova material, but that's their bad).

This being listed under GFDL per the server does not obligate them legally to release it. It means that copyright infringment is not an issue (hence their silliness at using that as an excuse for taking down online stuff - they could have said 'we want it down' as a more valid reason).

Arguing that all GFDL material must be put online in court, would be a landmark, non-profit venture, which would blow open quite few listservers to, for example, examination by oppressive government examination (slippery slope). Which would be the appropriate justification for not allowing lookie-loos, like us, to know what is on every Wikia listserver.

In short, I wish we'd all stop going here. Yes, they were hypocrites (I'm shocked! Shocked!), but the conversation goes nowhere.

Posted by: the fieryangel

I'm afraid that you're quite wrong here. "Copyright" is a proprietary right. if you control all of your copyright (ie if you're not stupid and you don't sign away your rights to one of these stupid licenses), you own the rights to every text/poem/screenplay/composition that you sign.

If you do sign away your rights via one of these stupid licenses, which only exist to rob creators of the power to earn a living from their work, then you're just stupid.

I maintain that Durova was "just stupid". I believe that she drank too much koolaid and signed away her rights.

If these posts are in the GFDL, then it's simply poetic justice in a big way. Please, let the poets at least have their justice, since everybody knows that poets don't make any money anyway....

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

No, I'm afraid you are misinterpreting open source licences, or extrapolating how they could theoretically allow access rights (which usually aren't at issue). Durova signed her ownership rights away (including the right to make money) for the material in the email. That doesn't mean that you get to see it.

Again, this is a (boring) academic discussion. This isn't something there is going to be a court case over, so why bother. Unless you aware of a case where someone was compelled to make available to everyone GFDL-released material, or GNU material, at request of third parties. I doubt one exists.
I'm not looking that one up, but you are welcome to.

BOTTOM LINE: This is all gobbeldygook. The Foundation used copyright as a dumb reason to take info offline. Whoever used copyright as an excuse is ignorant. So you making argumentation with an ignorant, incorrect assumption, or contesting it - and why. They could have just as easily said "we want it off" and taken it off.

Posted by: tarantino

Let's see what Arbcom member Morven thinks about posting emails without the consent of the sender.

Morven (Talk | contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&diff=prev&oldid=11891712 (edit) (undo)
(Removing Sam Spade's frivolous request to remove incriminating evidence of his behavior.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=11892542

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive/November_2005&diff=prev&oldid=11890924
I have removed your copyvio listing of [[User talk:FeloniousMonk]]. This is an abuse of the system. I have also reverted that page to restore it to the version prior to your removal. I would suggest not sending people emails through Wikipedia that you would be so embarassed about in future. [[User:Morven|—Morven]] 22:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morven/archive1&oldid=12482209#On_FM_Copyvio.

It is a rather short email, though.

Posted by: the fieryangel

YES, but....

The poster retains copyright on a GFDL license.....

HOWEVER, anybody who gives the original author credit can USE THE CONTENT.

....which means effectively that you've signed your copyrights away.

This is important here because, given the license, the notion of "copyright" disappears.

As long as you say "X said this", you do what you want with the content.

So, you can't sue anybody, unless they say "I said this.

Is this going to happen?

I should think not.

Posted by: Aloft

An excellent example of hypocrisy. Fairly typical, though. Wikipedians are well known for only enforcing the rules when it benefits them.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Nothing proves that this will be the ultimate view if somebody takes this to court, however....

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Copyright must be the wrong way to analyze leaking information from a private email list. A more sensible approach would be to get a contractually based non-disclosure agreement. Or perhaps hostages. Do these materials have any economic value? Why wouldn't fair use apply when discussing excerpts? Only a complete moron would set up a secret channel of communication and then free license it.

Rumors want to be free.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Right. Copyright isn't the issue. Privacy is. They should have said, "we take it down for privacy reasons". WP content is GFDL, and many things are taken down for privacy and other reasons.

If things are in the GFDL or G-whatever, no one is under any obligation to publish them (firstly) or make them available to everyone (all-access). But to charge for usage of the software (or material) is not correct (or legal), or to forbid the use of it. I dont think the law has caught up with the open source concept in the slightest yet. But most legal cases need to have some financial, or other good reason for them to justify investment of resources. Which this concept doesn't.

The bottom line is that they didn't want you to have it, and to sit and wrangle about the legality of their wording is passing the silly meter into the red.

if you want to use a chair at a wedding, and someone says "no", do you argue that you have a legal right to that chair? You could, but please.

Posted by: thekohser

I want to clarify. The original "WpCyberstalking" list was a SlimVirgin owned property (on Wikia). They changed the "owner" on that to cbs.listadmin@gmail.com. Jimbo was a member of that list.

The second, offspring list "WpInvestigations-l" was a Guy Chapman owned property (on Wikia). They changed the "owner" on that to wikiinl@gmail.com. Guy said on Wikipedia that Jimbo was now the "owner" of that list, but Jimbo says that it is news to him.

You really can't believe anything they say, and the swiftness to change ownerships and such is reminiscent of rats scurrying from a pie tin when the kitchen light is switched on after midnight.

And Jimbo wants us all to believe that these lists are "good". Why so much scurrying, if they're such saintly collections of do-gooders?

Has ANYONE failed to write a letter to their local newspaper Editor? If you have not yet done so, you really must. Please, let's make this the most popular Internet meme of December 2007.

Greg

Posted by: guy

So PL, if Herby is really such a staunch supporter, how come he's voted for Dmcdevit (the admin who blocked you, remember?) and Lar in the Stewards elections.