[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[SlimVirgin]

Alec Conroy alecmconroy at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 04:33:08 UTC 2007

... Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this case started, that
not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they
actively participated in it.  Any ruling against addressing whether
"secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as
much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova ...

Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused
from the get go.  They shouldn't have been even participating, they
should  have been parties.

-------------------------------

Alec, you're mixing up so many issues, it's hard to know where to
begin. Some points:

1. There is no suggestion that Durova, or anyone else, mentioned !! on
the Investigations list.
2. I can confirm that no ArbCom member took part in the thread that
Durova started with her case study of !! on the cyberstalking list.
There is therefore no evidence that ArbCom members even saw it. The
list can sometimes be high traffic, and not everything gets read. You
wouldn't want to be held responsible for everything that happens
subsequent to posts on this mailing list just because you subscribe to
it.
3. I'm again confirming that Durova didn't propose to block !! on the
cyberstalking list.
4. You're trying to create a "secret lists" meme, just as others tried
to create a BADSITES one. Fact: there are no secret lists. There are
public ones and private ones. The existence of the private ones is not
a secret. It's just that the membership and the discussion is not
posted. Just as your private inbox not being open to the public
doesn't mean that your use of e-mail is a secret.

Sarah