THE 2ND SUPER SECRET LIST (sent to me by name-withheld-by-request), I got this via a verifiable WP source just now - JzG's secret list Options

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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!

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.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

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.

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

Who sent it to you?

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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.

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

I saw this on WikiEN-l just now, for what it's worth:

Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk
Tue Nov 27 20:18:23 UTC 2007

On a related note, looks like my little list somehow wound up on WR. Didn't leak, not my fault. Whoever did might have consulted me first...

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14172

Now, all raise a glass to the virtues of transparency! Secret mailing lists devoted to "private investigations" and "confidential evidence" are a bad thing - and with a secret mailing list - thank heaven the clouds of darkness are blown away! But please don't blame me...

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

No no no, Daniel, that's not the funny one, this is:

Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com
Tue Nov 27 17:52:56 UTC 2007

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that
> would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward
> that members that were up for election were involved in this and their
> involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?


*I* am involved in multiple ongoing private discussions with dozens of
people. The list in question is being badly misrepresented as some kind
of problem. It is a good list, and the purpose of the list is good, and
not everyone on the list is perfect (as is always true).

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.

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.

What happened to community trust and decency?

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

url=http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/086094.html]this is[/url]:

Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com
Tue Nov 27 17:52:56 UTC 2007

*I* am involved in multiple ongoing private discussions with dozens of
people. The list in question is being badly misrepresented as some kind
of problem. It is a good list, and the purpose of the list is good, and
not everyone on the list is perfect (as is always true).

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.

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). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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=...ev&oldid=499279

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

What happened to community trust and decency?

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

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.

This post has been edited by Miltopia:

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=...ev&oldid=499279

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

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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

Let me help you.

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

Although

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

Doesn't help matters.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Aha! So it was a woman!

Aha! So it was a woman!

Who are you? Inspector Clouseau? You are reminding me of Durova. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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. No problem for Jimbo:

Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case
Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com
Tue Nov 27 18:01:27 UTC 2007

The cyberstalking list is in no way problematic.

I know nothing about any "investigations list" and can't comment. But in general, a list for investigations does not strike me as particularly problematic at all. It could be a bad thing, depending on what is meant, but the name itself does not automatically mean badness.

A good investigations list would be a quiet place where users could collect information and ask questions.

"Say, this person looks like a sockpuppet..."

"No, not really, check this out..."

"Oh, ok."

Nothing wrong with that, and in fact we need more of it. (IRC serves this function quite usefully in many cases.)

--Jimbo

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.

Because THAT's' going to happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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?



This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Because THAT's' going to happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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?

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?
(IMG:http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/noise5.gif)

Who sent it to you?

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.

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.

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?
(IMG:http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/noise5.gif)

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.

I've been getting these kinds of messages too.

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

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

What sekrit WR forum? No one tells me anything. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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.

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.)

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.

This post has been edited by badlydrawnjeff:

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?
(IMG:http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/noise5.gif)

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.

I've been getting these kinds of messages too.

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

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

What sekrit WR forum? No one tells me anything. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

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.

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!

Herbythyme is an admin on en, wikiquote and commons, and admin/checkuser/bureaucrat on meta. That would be useful for cross-eyed witch hunts.


fixed sp. per Daniel

This post has been edited by tarantino:

Herbythyme is an admin on en, wikiquote and commons, and admin/checkuser/bureaucrat on meta. That would be useful for cross-sight witch hunts.

I think you mean "cross-site" witch hunts. Or did you mean "cross-eyed" witch hunts? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I was making a moral argument, not a legal argument.

FOIA is a statute, hence a legal, not a moral argument.

I'm sure Jimbo would claim in his many speeches, if asked the question, that Wikipedia is completely open.

Of course. "Information wants to be free". So let it fly Jimbo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Even Bush wouldn't claim this about his administration.

I believe he has, made allusions that he's been utterly transparent, about various things, which of course wasn't, um, accurate.

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

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I was making a moral argument, not a legal argument.

FOIA is a statute, hence a legal, not a moral argument.

I'm sure Jimbo would claim in his many speeches, if asked the question, that Wikipedia is completely open.

Of course. "Information wants to be free". So let it fly Jimbo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Even Bush wouldn't claim this about his administration.

I believe he has, made allusions that he's been utterly transparent, about various things, which of course wasn't, um, accurate.

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

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.

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.

I didn't get anyone's diffs. I was sent a list of names, and a 1-2 sentence note. 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. I've looked things up.

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

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

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?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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

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).

I think the entire thing (list) is bollocks, as you Brits say.

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?

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

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

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?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

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

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

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

1. I'm NOT a brit.

Oops, sorry.

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

2. I'm NOT a journalist (just kidding) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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

Well, until such a time comes when people like that run the place, it will wait in resting.

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?

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.

Yes, but the owner used to be Guy Chapman, per Greg's webcites. Funny how that got changed, huh? --- Oops, sorry, didn't see that it had been linked before.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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 "the system works." This post-Durova embracing of "progressive" admins reminds me of Wikiabuse, and may have the same potential for WP admin manipulation and damage.

Giano is already making statements about how his actions demonstrate "the system works." This post-Durova embracing of "progressive" admins reminds me of Wikiabuse, and may have the same potential for WP admin manipulation and damage.

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.

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

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

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

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, and/or if you wanted to argue that in court, it 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.

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....