log

From #wikipedia IRC channel (Kelly Martin = NotACow):
QUOTE
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:32] *** Joins: jwales (n=jwales@wikipedia/Jimbo-Wales)
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:43] <Church_of_emacs> Hi jwales
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:44] <jwales> I am here to discuss the Register / Slashdot story.
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:48] <NotACow> hee
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:49] <Church_of_emacs> good
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:49] <jwales> Just want to know what people think about it
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:50] <Aqwis> hee
[Dec 4 2007 09:42:59] * Church_of_emacs is feeling confused about it
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:01] <absentia> please ban me, now. thank you.
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:02] <NotACow> jwales: considering i contributed to it, i think you know how i feel
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:06] <NotACow> absentia: why?
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:36] <jwales> Well, you were interviewed for it, that doesn't necessarily mean you endorse it. smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:40] *** Joins: dinounix (n=dinounix@sourcemage/mage/dinolinux)
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:47] <NotACow> jwales: i do, however.
[Dec 4 2007 09:43:51] <absentia> noacow: you're not even an op
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:15] <brown_cat> I beg to differ
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:15] <Church_of_emacs> [[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles]]: 6. says mailing lists are open, so why do we have this extra one?
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:19] <jwales> well there are a lot of factual errors in it, do you endorse those as well?
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:20] *** Quits: hangy (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:37] *** Joins: drunkenmonkey (n=andyrob8@strathbungo1.plus.com)
[Dec 4 2007 09:44:45] <NotACow> absentia: i can ban you from this channel. is that what you want?
[Dec 4 2007 09:45:24] *** Joins: Film11 (n=Film11@host86-130-144-105.range86-130.btcentralplus.com)
[Dec 4 2007 09:45:35] *** Quits: K__ ("Leaving")
[Dec 4 2007 09:45:35] <jwales> Church of emacs, please quote the part that says all mailing lists are open... that has not generally been true since forever. There are many mailing lists, some are open, some are not.
[Dec 4 2007 09:45:55] *** NotAGiano is now known as andy123
[Dec 4 2007 09:45:56] <Church_of_emacs> "The mailing list will remain open"
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:08] <afed> jwales: why shouldn't any mailing list be open
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:09] <drunkenmonkey> just noticed that artice pop up in my rss feed!
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:12] <Church_of_emacs> ok, doesn't say that about all
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:33] <afed> there is no legitimate purpose to administrators operating in secret
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:35] *** Joins: Alex (i=hauntedu@gentoo/user/Alex)
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:50] <afed> since all they will do is conspire to protect their power
[Dec 4 2007 09:46:52] <absentia> afed: you have never seen EFNET, right?
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:05] <Aqwis> the irc network?
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:05] <absentia> "power" love it.
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:09] <afed> i try to avoid efnet
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:11] <jwales> privacy considerations are important, afed
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:20] <absentia> ya, EFNET is a cesspool... same things occurred there in the early and mid 90s
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:21] <jwales> this is why the arbcom mailing list is private, for example
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:24] <absentia> people are so childish.
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:45] <drunkenmonkey> i agree with the majority of that article!
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:46] <jwales> in the case of the cyberstalking list (incorrectly referred to as "secret"), people were sharing personal stories of what had happened to them
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:53] <jwales> that's a good reason for privacy
[Dec 4 2007 09:47:57] *** Joins: Nishkid64|away (n=chatzill@161.253.50.94)
[Dec 4 2007 09:48:05] *** Joins: Cometstyles (i=ViRuS@wikimedia/Cometstyles)
[Dec 4 2007 09:48:24] <jwales> another major problem is that Durova is referred to as being part of "the ruling clique"... but in what way is that remotely true?
[Dec 4 2007 09:48:41] *** Jakl is now known as jakl
[Dec 4 2007 09:48:48] <afed> Durova banned a wikipedia account based on secret evidence from the cyberstalking list
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:00] <absentia> "evidence" ?
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:17] <afed> evidence that durova was willing to present to the arbitration committee but not post publicly
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:21] *** Nishkid64|away is now known as Nishkid64
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:22] <NotACow> afed: well, more accruartely she banned an account based on "evidence" which lacked all probative value which she shared with that list
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:39] <NotACow> afed: there's no evidence that her "evidence" was actually discussed there.
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:41] <absentia> is someone gonna ban me, or what?
[Dec 4 2007 09:49:52] <NotACow> absentia: no
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:14] <andy123> Absolutely, I have known Durova since a long time now, and from what I know of her, she can never be a part of some clique. Her affiliation is to the 'pedia alone, and nothing else.
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:20] <jwales> afed, but look what happened to durova
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:31] <Aqwis> even if the list exists for legitimate reasons, how do you expect wikipedia editors to trust you when they know *stuff* is being discussed in secret, that may have an impact on themselves?
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:41] <NotACow> afed: and the privacy of that list is more important to the cabalists who run it than creating a environment where editors feel secure from arbitrary sanction.
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:41] <jwales> she made a bad block and was quite properly criticized for it, she apologized and gave up her sysop bit
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:48] *** Joins: Cobi (i=cobi@Cobi.cluenet.org)
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:49] <jwales> none of that makes her part of any "ruling clique"
[Dec 4 2007 09:50:56] *** Joins: Wuzur (n=wuzur@brmn-4d0a88d3.pool.mediaWays.net)
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:08] <NotACow> jwales: it's quite obvious that she's been ejected from the clique and made to fall on her sword.
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:16] <jwales> NotACow: I think "cabalist" is a strange word for you to use there
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:23] *** Quits: Wuzur (Client Quit)
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:25] <jwales> NotACow: that's a very strange interpretation
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:34] <afed> well then she was properly dealt with
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:35] <NotACow> jwales: "high school gang" would be a better term, but takes longer to type.
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:37] <andy123> NotACow, weird, coming from you, especially.
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:40] *** Joins: root-80686 (n=manuel@wikipedia/root-80686)
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:44] * absentia likes cabalist.
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:45] <jwales> NotACow: why do you say that?
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:48] *** Quits: drunkenmonkey ()
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:50] <kenlyric> "The argument is that when a bunch of like-minded people get together, they're sounding boards for one another, and they end up getting way off base because there's not an opposing viewpoint around."
[Dec 4 2007 09:51:58] <kenlyric> I think that's a good summary of why it's a bad idea.
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:05] <NotACow> jwales: because the power politics in the wikipedia community resembles nothing so much as high school popularity cliques.
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:12] <afed> there should be some way of making it clear that she was dealt with so that raving maniacs like me who just read the register are aware of these things
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:25] <jwales> kenlyric: that's a very valid point about the danger of a list like this, and exhibits a much deeper understanding that Kelly's personal attacks do
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:26] <NotACow> jwales: in and out lists, pointless rivalries over irrelevancies, and the like
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:43] <andy123> NotACow, do you have evidence from Durova's patterns of editing to support such statements?
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:46] <NotACow> jwales: you're doing it right now, in fact!
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:48] <absentia> the problem with wikipedia is that you can't have a "consensus" on truth.
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:52] <jwales> NotACow: those things tend to happen, but not among the people who actually do make up the "ruling clique" if there is such a thing
[Dec 4 2007 09:52:57] *** Joins: cary-office (n=CaryBass@wikimedia/Bastique)
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:04] <jwales> NotACow: I am doing what right now?
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:13] <NotACow> jwales: as someone who used to be IN that ruling clique...
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:20] <absentia> and if its position is to simply host opinions, then it's doing a great job. if it's opinion is to be a serious encyclopedia and be accurate -- then it is a complete joke.
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:27] <absentia> and is failing miserably.
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:33] <NotACow> jwales: i would say that you are simply in denial.
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:41] <NotACow> jwales: which is sad, because you are the only person who can fix it
[Dec 4 2007 09:53:54] *** Joins: hangy__ (n=hangy@i59F56A9C.versanet.de)
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:08] <NotACow> jwales: but that's ok. the nice thing about wikipedia is that almost all the time, you and your little team of huffenpuffs can be ignored.
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:15] <Cometstyles> wink.gif
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:30] *** Joins: syrcro (n=chatzill@xdsl-84-44-152-230.netcologne.de)
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:33] * brown_cat waves to Cometstyles
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:43] <Church_of_emacs> hi syrcro
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:45] <Cometstyles> hey kitty kat biggrin.gif
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:45] <NotACow> jwales: that's why we're all so mad about durova
[Dec 4 2007 09:54:53] <andy123> cometstyles, dirama dhamaka ho raha hai
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:03] <NotACow> jwales: one of your little attack kittens took out, at random, a perfectly productive editor for absolutely no reason.
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:04] * brown_cat gives Cometstyles a cookie
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:07] *** Nishkid64 is now known as Nishkid64|away
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:08] <Doc_glasgow> jwales: we have unfortunatelty a culture of paranoia. One lot sees wikipedia review trolls everywhere, the other imagines a dark cabal conspiracy against humble writers (in which you figure). Now, yes, there are some nasty stalkers (but they are rare) and there's a slight danger of cliques abusing power. But there is a phenomenal failure to assume good faith on every side. Somewhere between...
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:11] <Cometstyles> andy123, Dik raha hai smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:11] <Doc_glasgow> ...paranoia and naivety, there needs to be sanity.
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:16] *** Nishkid64|away is now known as Nishkid64
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:16] <NotACow> jwales: the block of !! was the wiki equivalent of a driveby shooting
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:17] *** Joins: linuxguy3 (n=timj@hh-2-26.flexabit.net)
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:26] *** Joins: shijie (n=30436373@116.205.170.122)
[Dec 4 2007 09:55:47] <Cometstyles> andy123, thore derei mein saab kutta kamina log bhi aiajai :S
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:03] *** Joins: Jonny_Watts (n=chatzill@c-98-207-43-189.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:10] <NotACow> jwales: you guys aren't going to solve harassment by creating a secretive culture dedicated to discussing how to get even with them.
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:14] <Jonny_Watts> Database locked
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:15] <Mbimmler> going further with the argument, how Durova is treated now would be the wiki equivalent of tarring and feathering?
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:17] <brown_cat> at the end of all this debate there is one thing we can agree on, the media have been of great help, uniting the comunity and improving wikimedia public relations
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:32] <Mark_Ryan> Jonny_Watts, it is probably a very quick thing. probably unlocked already.
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:37] <jwales> NotACow: I agree wtih you completely. The purpose of the list was not to "discuss how to get even with them" but how to protect editors from stalkers.
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:40] <Cometstyles> again :S
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:45] <Jonny_Watts> I was going to make the most important edit and it locked.
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:53] <NotACow> jwales: then why is it being used for that purpose?
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:53] * Cometstyles tries to unlock the database
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:55] <brown_cat> xD
[Dec 4 2007 09:56:55] <kenlyric> but it wasn't
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:00] <kenlyric> since not all editors were invited.
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:03] * brown_cat gives Cometstyles a key
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:09] <Mark_Ryan> Jonny_Watts, it should have saved the text you sent, in that window
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:10] <jwales> NotACow: "one of your little attack kittens" - can you explain why you said that?
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:15] * Jonny_Watts steals key
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:16] <NotACow> jwales: i wasn't invited, even though i've been rather heavily wikistalked.
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:23] *** Parts: absentia (n=scott@ns6.lobodirect.com)
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:32] *** Quits: soufron_ (Connection timed out)
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:35] <NotACow> jwales: because it's a nicely quotable phrase to refer to people like durova, jzg, etc.
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:47] * kenlyric notes the Masons started out as a casual gathering too...
[Dec 4 2007 09:57:54] <jwales> Doc_glasgow: I agree that there is a phenomenal failure to assume good faith
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:16] *** Quits: Hildanknight ("ChatZilla 0.9.78.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.8/2007100816]")
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:16] <afed> secrecy will do that
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:16] <NotACow> jwales: yes, durova failed to assume good faith. your bestest buddy slim virgin consistently refuses to assume good faith.
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:16] <Mark_Ryan> what puzzles me most about this whole Durova 'affair', jwales, is why the cyberstalking mailing list was hosted on Wikia, rather than Wikipedia.
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:27] * Cometstyles nods O_O
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:29] <jwales> NotACow: the list is not and has not been used for the purpose of "creating a secretive culture"
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:31] <Aqwis> relevant to that is my question which i posted a few minutes ago, jwales
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:38] <kenlyric> if there needs to be a harassment committee and a private mailing list for that committee, then so be it.
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:54] * Jonny_Watts unlocks the database, yay!
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:57] <NotACow> jwales: that may not have been its purpose, but it has certainly been its result!
[Dec 4 2007 09:58:57] <kenlyric> but the fact that it exists shouldn't be a secret
[Dec 4 2007 09:59:03] <Mark_Ryan> Jonny_Watts, is that all fixed now?
[Dec 4 2007 09:59:06] <andy123> It is only obvious that such mailing lists will have to be used in the future, if Wikipedia has to survive.
[Dec 4 2007 09:59:20] <NotACow> jwales: i think you're just willfully ignorant of the issues here.
[Dec 4 2007 09:59:37] <Cometstyles> wikipedia will survive..but we know what happened to the dinosaurs sad.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:20] *** Joins: Ioeth (n=Ioeth@ip-66-80-240-18.iad.megapath.net)
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:24] <Doc_glasgow> jwales: you really /should/ review this vile thread. In which JamesF is accused of being a liar by slimvirgin. The thread is blatantly libellous and involves senior wikipedians. But make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...little_footnote
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:32] *** Joins: zaid (n=noid@72.12.166.246)
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:36] <kenlyric> and in fact it should be a place for anyone to report harassment. And it should be a defined committee, not "anyone we like who we randomly invite"
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:52] *** Joins: Fabexplosive (n=Fabexdj@wikimedia/Fabexplosive)
[Dec 4 2007 10:00:59] <Jonny_Watts> Oh now guess what, MediaWiki now has a warning feature that tells you if a user exists or not, Cool!
[Dec 4 2007 10:01:21] <afed> agree with kenlyric
[Dec 4 2007 10:01:25] <Cometstyles> very libellious :S
[Dec 4 2007 10:01:39] <andy123> This wouldn't have been such a major issue if Durova had just submitted the evidence to the Arbitration Committee.
[Dec 4 2007 10:01:43] <afed> if the mailing list must be secret, it must at least have a defined purpose and public membership
[Dec 4 2007 10:01:53] <afed> publicly known list of members that is
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:00] <Mark_Ryan> andy123, do you mean before contemplating blocking/
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:12] <Jonny_Watts> Lemme guess, 1.2
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:14] <jwales> Doc_glasgow: yes, I am aware of that thread. It's nonsense.
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:22] <andy123> Leaving the blocking for the AC.
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:34] <Jonny_Watts> The wiki says 1.5, I was close.
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:34] <Doc_glasgow> jwales: nonsense probably, but toxic
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:35] <Cometstyles> bah still opening :S
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:48] <Jonny_Watts> Oh no 1.11
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:51] <Fabexplosive> hello
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:54] <kenlyric> I work with harassment cases in my job. I understand the need for privacy. But I don't share those cases willy nilly with anyone who i happen to like. The people involved in investigation and arbitration are pre-defined.
[Dec 4 2007 10:02:55] <Mark_Ryan> afed: unfortunately, the make-up of this private mailing list was such that it included victims as well as people managing the situation. so it would be bad to reveal the list membership of that one.
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:07] *** Quits: Jonny_Watts ("ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.11/2007112718]")
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:23] <Fabexplosive> hi Mark_Ryan
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:27] <Mark_Ryan> hello smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:28] <jwales> Doc, tell me more... what I mean is toxic in what way exactly? (I agree but want to make sure we are on the same page...)
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:34] * brown_cat huggles Mark_Ryan and Fabexplosive
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:37] <afed> another thing i'd like to ask is who gets stalked on wikipedia and why is it a problem
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:40] *** Quits: Cobi (Remote closed the connection)
[Dec 4 2007 10:03:51] <afed> why would you ever put your real name or any stalkable information on wikipedia
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:01] <Fabexplosive> yo jwales, brown_cat
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:11] <brown_cat> biggrin.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:16] <Mark_Ryan> afed: unfortunately even if you don't do that, people dig.
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:18] <Cometstyles> anywayz ain' the username [[User:!!]] a violation of the [[WP:U|username policy]] ?
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:26] <Church_of_emacs> afed, there are people who choose to register their account under their real name
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:42] <Aqwis> most people seem to use the same username everywhere on the intenet
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:43] <Mark_Ryan> like, if you use a pseudonym on other sites as well as Wikipedia, they could find out your true identity elsewhere
[Dec 4 2007 10:04:58] <afed> Mark_Ryan: maybe not, !! is probably a proper name in areas where they use !! and other symbols as language
[Dec 4 2007 10:05:19] <Cometstyles> yay it opened happy.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:01] *** Joins: Cobi (i=cobi@Cobi.cluenet.org)
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:06] *** brion-away is now known as brion-office
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:17] <Doc_glasgow> jwales: I've no idea of the truth. But for someone to make public accusations against James, and disbelive his assurances, when by nature of the case he cannot possibly disprove them is contemptible. It is flinging mad, and mud sticks. That thread will be produced as evidence of smoke if James ever seeks community approval for anything. And that's unfair. Slim should have taken her concerns...
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:19] <Doc_glasgow> ...to James privately, and gone to arbcom, you or the foundation if she had evidence of wrongdoing
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:20] *** Quits: hangy_ (Success)
[Dec 4 2007 10:06:50] <Doc_glasgow> as I say, I've no idea about the truth
[Dec 4 2007 10:07:20] *** Sepultura_ is now known as Sepultura
[Dec 4 2007 10:08:52] <Doc_glasgow> eh?
[Dec 4 2007 10:09:11] <jwales> Doc, I agree with you completely.
[Dec 4 2007 10:09:14] <Cometstyles> "the truth is out there" but who is looking wink.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:09:23] <jwales> But I doubt if anything will stick to James over it...
[Dec 4 2007 10:09:54] *** Joins: eljo__ (n=johannes@pD9E0B477.dip.t-dialin.net)
[Dec 4 2007 10:09:59] *** Quits: Pthag (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:01] <Doc_glasgow> jwales: of course it will. There's dozens of users willing to assume the worst over any person with influence here sad.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:07] * brion-office waves g'morning
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:30] <kenlyric> i believe his assurances about this incident. I don't believe them regarding this mailing list.
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:39] <Doc_glasgow> see
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:53] <Doc_glasgow> personally, I trust James absolutely
[Dec 4 2007 10:10:57] <kenlyric> oh god
[Dec 4 2007 10:11:15] <kenlyric> that's just plain cult
[Dec 4 2007 10:11:21] <kenlyric> I don't even trust myself absolutely.
[Dec 4 2007 10:11:22] *** Joins: boothinator (n=boothina@nat01-starkey-ext.Rutgers.EDU)
[Dec 4 2007 10:11:51] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: try it, it is called [[WP:AGF]]
[Dec 4 2007 10:11:56] *** Nishkid64 is now known as Nishkid64|away
[Dec 4 2007 10:12:23] <kenlyric> harassment needs a formalized committee/whatever, not a random "who we like" lynch mob.
[Dec 4 2007 10:12:42] *** Parts: dinounix (n=dinounix@sourcemage/mage/dinolinux)
[Dec 4 2007 10:12:47] <jwales> kenlyric, can you quote for me the particular statement from james "regarding this mailing list" that you don't believe?
[Dec 4 2007 10:13:20] <jwales> kenlyric: I agree with you. Harassment needs a formalized approach, and lynch mobs are always bad.
[Dec 4 2007 10:14:03] *** Joins: soufron (n=soufron@vol75-1-81-57-79-123.fbx.proxad.net)
[Dec 4 2007 10:14:42] *** Joins: toobaz (n=pietro@85-18-66-24.ip.fastwebnet.it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:14:44] <kenlyric> jwales: "jwales> NotACow: the list is not and has not been used for the purpose of "creating a secretive culture"
[Dec 4 2007 10:14:51] <kenlyric> is what I don't believe.
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:11] <jwales> kenlyric: why not?
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:13] <kenlyric> I agree that it may not have been intended for it.
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:21] <kenlyric> but that is what has happened.
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:26] <jwales> it was not intended for it, and it did not happen
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:34] * NotACow snorts
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:40] <kenlyric> do you agree that harassment does not have a formalized approach?
[Dec 4 2007 10:15:40] <NotACow> jwales: when did you move to egypt?
[Dec 4 2007 10:16:02] *** Joins: Ramac (n=Ramac@host-84-221-243-42.cust-adsl.tiscali.it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:16:24] <kenlyric> do you agree that a mailing list whose membership arbitrarily is chosen discussing and *dealing with* harassment isn't the best approach?
[Dec 4 2007 10:16:32] *** Quits: hangy__ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[Dec 4 2007 10:16:50] *** Quits: Yuri-Kh (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
[Dec 4 2007 10:16:58] <jwales> kenlyric: I don't know of any mailing list whose membership is dealing with harassment other than the arbcom, but it is not arbitrarily chosen
[Dec 4 2007 10:17:18] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: we can't prevent mailing lists even if we wanted to
[Dec 4 2007 10:17:29] <jwales> and this mailing list is not guilty of what some people accuse it of
[Dec 4 2007 10:17:32] *** Joins: Lorolo (n=chatzill@host93-0-dynamic.16-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:17:52] <jwales> you have to remember that NotACow has a huge dislike for slim virgin... i don't even know or remember the original source for it
[Dec 4 2007 10:17:54] <kenlyric> Doc_glasgow: this mailing list isn't official? Just random editors getting together and saying "look what this bozo did?"
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:06] <jwales> but the facts do not bear out her claims, and snorting is not a rational arugment
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:11] *** Joins: shahulnath (n=Extreme3@210.212.20.76)
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:13] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: it isn't official, no
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:15] <NotACow> jwales: i don't have a "huge dislike" for slim virgin
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:27] <jwales> kenlyric: it is not random editors getting together and saying "look what this bozo did?"
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:32] <Cometstyles> the problem is not that their was a mailing list but the problem was that that information was released by a trusted person wink.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:36] <jwales> NotACow: then may I quote what you said about her?
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:39] <kenlyric> jwales: it can't be both.
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:46] <NotACow> jwales: rather, i think she is a very damaging person whose continued presence in the community is harmful and should nt be allowed to continue
[Dec 4 2007 10:18:47] <Mark_Ryan> jwales: a quick perusal of sites like Wikitruth shows a lot of stuff about slim virgin, and stuff about her real name and occupation. what's going on there? I think I missed that controversy
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:07] *** Parts: lea_w (n=lea_w@dhcp-138-80.vassar.edu)
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:10] *** Parts: shahulnath (n=Extreme3@210.212.20.76)
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:25] <NotACow> jwales: i have a lot of contempt for her. but i have a lot of contempt for you, too. i also think you're interesting, funny, and a good person to have dinner with.
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:28] <kenlyric> jwales: it either has to be informal, or it is formal chosen arbitrarily.
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:36] <Cometstyles> bah, she is not a spy :S ..its all fictious :S
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:38] <kenlyric> since obviously the community was not involved in it.
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:54] <NotACow> jwales: honestly i don't understand why you let slim viirgin stay around, she does nothing useful for the encyclopedia and is SO damaging to the community.
[Dec 4 2007 10:19:55] <jwales> Mark_Ryan: oh it is very complicated. It terms of "what is going on there" it is very hard for me to understand at all. she attracted the attentio of some people who did research and "outed" her... with some amazing errors and some shreds of truth and a huge amoutn of nonsense
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:10] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: the recipients were self-selecting
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:19] <Mark_Ryan> so it's a bit of "Jews Did WTC", really?
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:23] <jwales> jwales: it can't be both? You lost me there.
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:25] <kenlyric> Doc_glasgow: so anyone could join?
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:25] <Cometstyles> O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:30] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: no
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:46] <jwales> NotACow: file an ArbCom case to have her banned, if you think you can justify it. If not, then what are you asking me to do?
[Dec 4 2007 10:20:51] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: as far as I know, it was by invitation only
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:03] <kenlyric> then you and I have a very different definition of self-selecting.
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:10] <NotACow> jwales: you have seen my comments about the arbcom and my attitude toward it, have you not?
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:20] *** Joins: Grovespaz (n=papa@s559135b7.adsl.wanadoo.nl)
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:27] <NotACow> jwales: it would be morally inconsistent for me to make any use of the arbcom.
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:28] <kenlyric> if there was no process as to who got invites, then it was arbitrary. If there was a process, that process should be public.
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:37] <jwales> kenlyric: it was an ad hoc group of people formed around discussing problems that this group of people have had with cyberstalking, often by the same people... it was not and is not a policy list, it was not and is not a source of coordinated blocking or bans or anything of the sort.
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:42] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: Isorry, meant the owner selects who gets in, not any offical in wikipedia
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:44] <Cometstyles> someone.. revive the server ohmy.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:47] <jwales> kenlyric: friends can get together to discuss something privately without a public process
[Dec 4 2007 10:21:50] *** Joins: gerolsteiner91 (n=gerolste@pD9E1295B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:21] <kenlyric> jwales: until those discussions are used in force on wikipedia.
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:34] <jwales> NotACow: I have not found your comments to be persuasive, because "snort" is not an argument, and insults do not tend to persuade me. facts would be helpful.
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:37] *** Joins: StettinPalver (i=massimil@wikimedia/massimiliano-lincetto)
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:38] <NotACow> kenlyric: which they are, and have been, for quite some time
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:48] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: there are dozens of IRC channels where groups of admins meet and discuss whatever - most are by invitation only and unofficial
[Dec 4 2007 10:22:49] <jwales> kenlyric: I am unaware of any discussions on that list being used "in force on wikipedia"
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:11] *** Quits: Aeternus (Nick collision from services.)
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:13] <NotACow> jwales: honestly, i don't expect to convince you of anytihng.
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:15] *** StettinPalver is now known as Aeternus
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:19] <kenlyric> jwales: really?
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:39] <jwales> kenlyric: if you are referring to the Durova/!! ban, it was not discussed at all on that list
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:44] *** Quits: Jetro (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:45] *** Joins: Yuri-Kh (n=noid@dhcp-0-14-bf-4b-3b-4d.cpe.mountaincable.net)
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:47] <kenlyric> that seems to be exactly the "evidence" that this Durova was using
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:48] <NotACow> jwales: you are highly motivated not to agree with me, it would be folly for me to think that you have any incentive to consider my point of view anyway
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:52] *** Parts: Ramac (n=Ramac@host-84-221-243-42.cust-adsl.tiscali.it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:52] <jwales> that is not the sort of thing the list was designed for nor focusssed on
[Dec 4 2007 10:23:53] <Cometstyles> bah [[IRC:No Personal Attacks]] :|
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:01] *** Joins: Jetro (n=Jetro__@062016238090.customer.alfanett.no)
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:05] <NotACow> jwales: my goal is not to convince you, but instead to undermine you
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:05] *** Parts: gerolsteiner91 (n=gerolste@pD9E1295B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:08] <Aeternus> I have to report a copyviol
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:09] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: the principle is that each admin is responsible for their own actions - they can only claim the protection of consensus if they can point to it on-wiki. Private discussion are only advisory, and don't amount to corporate responsibility or consensus.
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:16] <Mark_Ryan> Aeternus: what/where?
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:20] *** Quits: andy123 ("Hey! What does this 'X' button do?")
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:38] <jwales> NotACow: I am always motivated to consider the facts. I appreciate that you have an axe to grind, and I am sorry that rather than engage in a conversation, you have chosen to seek to "undermine" me whatever that means.
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:50] <Cometstyles> heh
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:51] *** Joins: Sludge (n=sludge@24.86.255.209)
[Dec 4 2007 10:24:52] <NotACow> jwales: my attempts to engage you in conversation have generally been ignored.
[Dec 4 2007 10:25:10] <NotACow> jwales: i had a very unsatisfactory conversation with you over the course of five months regarding a certain defamatory editor
[Dec 4 2007 10:25:24] <Aeternus> Mark_Ryan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computed_Axia...ical_scan_doses ← under the table
[Dec 4 2007 10:25:26] <NotACow> jwales: you constantly promised to review the situation and take action, but you never did.
[Dec 4 2007 10:25:35] <Aeternus> there is an entire article reported
[Dec 4 2007 10:26:06] <NotACow> jwales: you've established that you are not reliable, that you do not keep your word, and that you don't care even though you claim to. why should i extend trust to you now given that you've abused it in the past?
[Dec 4 2007 10:26:10] <jwales> NotACow: I am sorry that you were not satisified. I did what I thought best. Failing to agree with you to the very last degree is hardly a reason for this kind of extensive animosity.
[Dec 4 2007 10:26:42] <jwales> NotACow: I am sorry you feel that way. I am happy to readdress anything you need readdressed. We can do it in conjunction with the ArbCom if you like.
[Dec 4 2007 10:26:58] <Mark_Ryan> Aeternus: where do you think it is a copyright violation from?
[Dec 4 2007 10:27:06] <NotACow> jwales: go read my comments about the arbcom. i've already made it clear to the entire world that i consider the arbcom unfit for any purpose.
[Dec 4 2007 10:27:18] * Cometstyles looks for WR spies O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:27:43] <jwales> NotACow: I am sorry you feel that way. It is a real shame. I hope that you will rethink things.
[Dec 4 2007 10:27:59] <Aeternus> The New England Journal of Medicine / Volume 357:2277-2284 November 29, 2007 Number 22 NextNext / Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc., and Eric J. Hall, D.Phil., D.Sc.
[Dec 4 2007 10:28:00] <NotACow> jwales: anyhow. message receieved, although the message is redundant as i've known that i've been "out" for quite some time now. i have better things to do than trade insults with you.
[Dec 4 2007 10:28:22] <Aeternus> Mark_Ryan: it's an entire article, it seems obvious to me :-|
[Dec 4 2007 10:28:44] <Aeternus> (not the table, I mean the article below it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:04] <Mark_Ryan> Aeternus, ah, someone already reverted it before I got to it smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:16] <Aeternus> ah ok
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:21] <NotACow> jwales: i don't belive that even if i made a completely complete, evidenced case, to the arbcom, i would get anything resembling fair consideration.
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:25] <Mark_Ryan> thanks for reporting it, though smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:32] *** Joins: DarkAppo89 (n=chatzill@d83-176-97-180.cust.tele2.it)
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:42] *** Parts: Ioeth (n=Ioeth@ip-66-80-240-18.iad.megapath.net)
[Dec 4 2007 10:29:44] <kenlyric> you know, that register article implies but never presents evidence that the mailing list was used to discuss the evidence against !!.
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:10] <kenlyric> so, shame on me for not reading groking that the first time through.
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:15] <NotACow> kenlyric: we still don't know. the people on that list will not answer questions about that.
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:28] <Aeternus> Mark_Ryan: np... but usually do you only a revert or do you remove the edit from the history?
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:34] <jwales> NotACow: if you attempted to do so, and the ArbCom behaved irrationally towards you, then you would have a powerful argument in favor of your perspective. It is very easy to assume a conclusion and get angry about it, much harder to engage people in good faith and with a willingness to understand that good people may not agree with you on every point.
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:52] <kenlyric> NotACow: the implication was that the email from durova detailing the evidence was explicit.
[Dec 4 2007 10:30:54] <jwales> The mailing list was not used to discuss !!.
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:05] <NotACow> jwales: quite frankly, i don't have the time in my life to spend a month going through diffs to gather the proof, not to mention quite a lot of them have been oversighted anyway.
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:07] <Mark_Ryan> Aeternus: we usually just revert, but if we're asked by the copyright holder to expunge the edit from public access, we do (our page histories aren't indexed by google, so it won
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:12] <Mark_Ryan> ...t show up in results
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:28] * Cometstyles wonders if the so-called mailing list has been compromised? O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:35] <NotACow> Cometstyles: of course it has
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:47] <Mark_Ryan> Cometstyles: presumably so, since Giano got given the email by someone
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:52] <afed> maybe you guys could make A SECRET WIKI
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:57] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: it was one bad post of moronically bad judgement - there's no other smoking gun
[Dec 4 2007 10:31:59] <Aeternus> yes, I see. On it.wiki we use to remove all from the history, so I asked smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:32:00] <Aeternus> The next time I'll revert myself smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:32:13] * Cometstyles meant if it was archived and the information stolen wink.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:32:46] <Cometstyles> btw wikia has over 3500 mailing list :S
[Dec 4 2007 10:33:11] <kenlyric> Doc_glasgow: taking another look at it, the issue to me (now) seems to be that the list has the odor of being unofficially official: everyone who counts is on it.
[Dec 4 2007 10:33:24] *** Physchim62 is now known as PC62|away
[Dec 4 2007 10:33:42] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: they can have who they want on it.
[Dec 4 2007 10:33:43] <NotACow> Cometstyles: i think i know who, too, but i'm certainly not going to tell anyone.
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:00] <Cometstyles> O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:07] <brown_cat> O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:08] <Cometstyles> and the mystery unfolds O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:14] <brown_cat> O_O
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:39] <kenlyric> Doc_glasgow: the should lose the odor then, and not claim to be the place where wikistalking policy is reviewed.
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:44] <NotACow> jwales: you don't want me back inside. i undertsand that. it's better for wikipedia that i be outside; it protects my objectivity.
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:52] * brown_cat suckles
[Dec 4 2007 10:34:56] *** Parts: brown_cat (n=chatzill@124-169-79-139.dyn.iinet.net.au)
[Dec 4 2007 10:35:26] <Doc_glasgow> kenlyric: you and I can go into a chat list and review any policy we want - nothing stops that happening
[Dec 4 2007 10:35:36] <Cometstyles> no toys for that cat smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:35:57] <jwales> NotACow: all I ask for is kindness and an open dialogue, I don't care for the notions of "inside" and "outside". You are still here part of the IRC ruling clique. :-)
[Dec 4 2007 10:36:06] *** Joins: spartaz (n=chatzill@87.54.49.73)
[Dec 4 2007 10:36:47] <NotACow> jwales: yes, that serves to establish the independence of the IRC channels more than anything else.
[Dec 4 2007 10:36:48] <Cometstyles> happy.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:37:12] <kenlyric> but you and I aren't the entirety of the editing elite. When you gather them all together and they make claims to review policy *as a part of their charter*, that smacks of official.
[Dec 4 2007 10:37:18] *** Joins: sheww (n=us@user-12lmi1d.cable.mindspring.com)
[Dec 4 2007 10:37:19] <NotACow> jwales: i will have no compuction against removing you from the channel if you step outside our rules smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:38:30] <afed> fun fact: there is a secret channel where the ops of this channel discuss how to run this channel, without any oversight or accountability biggrin.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:38:39] <sheww> lol
[Dec 4 2007 10:38:54] <kenlyric> yeah, but IRC never claims to be democratic or open
[Dec 4 2007 10:39:37] *** Quits: Lorolo ("ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.10/2007111504]")
[Dec 4 2007 10:39:40] <Mark_Ryan> jwales: I'm sure the cyberstalking mailing list is a good idea, but I think you should consider shifting it to Wikimedia-space, and giving it [[WP:OFFICE]] teeth. That way, you can ensure the confidentiality.
[Dec 4 2007 10:39:54] <kenlyric> of course the idea of democracy without secrets is unworkable in real life, which you often find as a prevalent attitude online.
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:04] *** Joins: Golbez1 (n=Golbez@12-208-80-153.client.mchsi.com)
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:05] <Mark_Ryan> afed: don't tell anyone, but it's #wikimedia-ops
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:11] *** Quits: zaid (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:24] <NotACow> Mark_Ryan: well, there is the private messages you and i use smile.gif
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:32] <jwales> Mark, yes. I agree. It was not started by me, and I was just randomly subscribed to it when it was created. I did not even notice for the longest time that it was on wikia.
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:38] <jwales> It could have been on yahoo or anywhere.
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:42] <afed> the idea of democracy with secrets is a fundamental contradiction
[Dec 4 2007 10:40:56] <Doc_glasgow> thatcher-around: [Arbcom] "Mailing list: Why not let all admins read it? Admins are trusted members of the project and therefore i'd see no problem if admins could read it (preferably uninvolved admins). I am a supporter of transparency."
[Dec 4 2007 10:41:04] <jwales> afed: i do not agree that the idea of democracy with secrets is a fundamental contradiction


Replies
Emperor 	
post 27 minutes ago
Post #2


Ayatollah of Rock 'n' Rollah
***

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



	
Great stuff. My favorite part is when he asks her to compile diffs for ArbCom and she says she can't because many of them have been oversighted.

Replies
Moulton 	
post 21 minutes ago
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page / talk
Editing patterns
Contribs (enwiki)


	
For me, the takeaway observation comes from Doc Glasgow...

QUOTE(Doc Glasgow to Jimbo Wales)
We have unfortunately a culture of paranoia. One lot sees Wikipedia Review trolls everywhere, the other imagines a dark cabal conspiracy against humble writers (in which you figure). Now, yes, there are some nasty stalkers (but they are rare) and there's a slight danger of cliques abusing power. But there is a phenomenal failure to assume good faith on every side. Somewhere between paranoia and naivety, there needs to be sanity.


Replies
anthony 	
post 6 minutes ago
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



	
QUOTE

[Dec 4 2007 10:25:10] <NotACow> jwales: i had a very unsatisfactory conversation with you over the course of five months regarding a certain defamatory
[Dec 4 2007 10:25:26] <NotACow> jwales: you constantly promised to review the situation and take action, but you never did.
[Dec 4 2007 10:26:06] <NotACow> jwales: you've established that you are not reliable, that you do not keep your word, and that you don't care even though you claim to. why should i extend trust to you now given that you've abused it in the past?


A very true quote about the way Jimbo works. You tell him something he doesn't have an answer for, he says he'll review the situation and get back to you, and then you don't hear from him again. Call him on it, and he'll pull out the "assume good faith" bullshit. It's actually a very effective technique, until you finally realize you've been had.

Replies
Piperdown 	
post A minute ago
Post #2


Not WordBomb (not that there's anything wrong with that)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
From: New Mexico & Brooklyn, Simultaneously!
Member No.: 2,995

WP user page / talk
Editing patterns
Contribs (enwiki)


	
If I were a NotACow, here's what I'd have said in that exchange -

1) Jimbo, when you gave out the "shoot on sight" edict on WP, did you really think that one out? This is what happens.

2) How's that Jayjg transparency going, Jimbo?

there's a lot more I could think of, but the above are good appetizers