On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wait a minute;
what "kangaroo court"? Durova is an individual admin,
and Matthew and Guy have both said clearly and unequivocally that she
didn't ask *any* list for permission to block, or, I believe, even
mention that she was planning to do so.
Read the email. It's obvious she's accusing !! of blockable
offenses-- being a WR Sockpuppet.
To you, perhaps.
On a list of "people who already believe in bigfoot"-- seems to fly
afoul of CANVASSing.
Are you suggesting that, like bigfoot, the claims that Wikipedians
have been harassed by WR members are mythical?
Then, about five individuals engaged in "in depth" discussion with
her, and "enthusiastically endorsed" the block. This isn't a fairy
tale-- this is Durova's own words.
And Guy and Matthew have both stated that Durova did not propose on
either list that anyone be blocked, so, if there was any "enthusiastic
endorsing" of a block, it couldn't have been there. Relata Refero has
suggested that there may be some third, truly secret off-Wikia mailing
list that is the one co-ordinating blocks. If such a thing exists,
which I highly doubt, do you imagine that Wikipedia can do anything
about it?
To say that the community & arbcom have no
business whatsoever in
examine who those people were and what they told her.
Err, what?
For example-- did any of them present knowingly FALSE evidence to her?
I doubt it, but a "secret list" should be used to prevent arbcom from
finding out the truth.
So, you're now talking about this third list hypothesized by Relata Refero?
Do the people who endorsed her block need to have their use of tools
monitored a little more closely by the community?? The answer we're
getting right now is not "yes" or "no" but "That's none of
Arbcom's
business "
Actually, the answer you're getting right now is "she didn't even
propose a block, so no-one could have endorsed it". For some reason,
though, you don't seem to be hearing that.
It's really quite simple-- you ban somebody, you have to account for
it. THat includes what evidence you got-- ALL of it. That includes
what advice you got, ALL of it.
Now _maybe_ there's a privacy case for not giving it to the community,
but there's no case whatsoever for not letting the full arbcom see all
those emails. And the more people fight us on this, the more it
contributes to a perception, warranted or not, that those emails have
something worth hiding in them. Not just something worth hidng from
me, mind you-- something worth hiding from arbcom.
What e-mails?
It's just not acceptable. It's a RECIPE for
schism, paranoia and
drama.
I think a much stronger case can be made that your own actions and
posts here are the recipe for that.