Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

On 11/30/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's fine-- to those of us who weren't invited in, the distinctions between the two lists have been very vague and murky. At the least, the "investigations" list, by its very name and description, seems to involve "sleuthing"-- but it's totally conceivable that !! was not a target discussed. Well, part of the issue is that, and part of the outrage, is that as of a few weeks ago, I thought even creating a secret list, inviting all your wikipolitical-like-minded friends to join it, and participating in such a list was prohibited. I, for one, thought just doing so was wrong, for all the reasons expressed at CANVASS and star chamber. So, for example, to take my own pet wikipolitical issue-- certainly it had occured to me that I could set up a list of the people who had registered their opposition to BADSITES. Then, whenever a BADSITES-like deletions occurred, I could just post to the list, and the consensus could descend upon the page and restore the deletion. But I never made such a list, never even sent emails, because I thought that some sort of off-wiki coordination would basically be subverting the wiki-process-- stacking the deck. When it came out that lists made up of people on the other side of the debate existed-- Cyberstalking and Investigations are the ones we know about so far-- it was immediately clear either people hadn't been playing by the rules or else my earlier understanding of hte rules was in error. In considering the basic question of "Is a list like this Investigations appropriate?", clearly Arbcom members who were ON the list shouldn't be deciding the question. They should have recused themselves, and It would have been very bad for the community if any split-decisions came down where the deciding votes were cast by arbcom member who maybe should have been recused. Since that didn't happen, we lucked out. See, without the evidence, you could confirm that and I'd just have to believe you. But the evidence is out, and "No one could ever have known !! might be blocked" just doesn't hold water. Anybody familiar with wikipedia who read Durova's "evidence" and didn't "get" that !! was in danger of a block is either incompetent or insincere. That just doesn't stand up in the light of day. Arbcom-l is private-- there are criteria for who can join, its existence is public, its membership is public. Cyberstalkings and Investigations were secret. Durova repeatedly asserted this in her "evidence" that the mere EXISTENCE of the list was not known. It took days and days of asking before even the NAME of the investigations list was revealed, as the members of the list stonewalled, before finally the name came out through leaks from non-members. The membership lists of both lists have been leaked, but I still don't think they've been mentioned on-wiki. I can assure you-- these were secret lists. --- In the end, it doesn't matter. Obviously, at this point, the answer to "Is it appropriate to set up a secret list where you and your like-minded buddies discuss on-wiki happening" is "Yes, that is appropriate. " Admittedly, I think if that if the question had come up in a different context-- if the anti-BADSITES people had made such a list and it came to light, we might have reached a different answer, but things are as they are, and lots of big names have vouched for the idea that these lists are appropriate, so.. barring some policy change, I guess that's that.. The end result is-- the next time I see six admins all agree on something, I have to stop for just a second and check in my head-- are they a random sample, or are they a biased sample-- rather than just assuming that of course they wouldn't be colluding in a secret/private forum. Maybe I should have been performing that sort of mental double-check all along, maybe everyone else already was. Alec