On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:32 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com > wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence"
email,
no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight
and
Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post it is not accurate.