On Nov 30, 2007 12:16 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, how can people show you e-mails they say don't exist to begin
with?
I'm sorry, but to my knowledge, nobody has actually seriously said such conversations don't exist.
That's asking people to prove a negative. Has Durova, or has anyone else who was actually party to discussions, said anything that indicates there ever was a discussion offwiki on the specific subject of whether !! should be banned?
Durova has said multiple times that there were in-depth discussions and
enthusiastic support.
"In-depth discussions" of what, exactly? An in-depth discussion of the suspicion that !! might be a reincarnation of a banned user, and enthusiastic support for more investigation is not the same as enthusiastic support for an immediate block.
The arbitration case has a stable majority for findings that require administrators to account openly for their actions so far as possible, or bring them to the attention of the Arbitration Committee if they feel openness would be damaging. That seems to be proportionate to what happened in this case; if the arbitrators felt in need of more evidence, they could presumably demand it.