On 11/29/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
Well, the cyberstalking list seems to have had a rather widespread membership, albeit perhaps a biased sampling.
The double-secrect "investigations" list seems more ambiguous. http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpinvestigations-l
Nobody would reveal its name forever. It's description, "A private mailing list related to reviewing disruption on Wikipedia." strongly suggests that its goal was to coordinate responses to 'disruption' on Wikipedia. Supposedly a mere 11 people involved-- Flonight & Morven are two of them, Durova was a third.
If it turns out that there's a decision to ban Giano for revealing secret mailing list posts by Durova, and the two deciding votes are just happen to come from people who are on a secret mailing list with Durvoa-- Wikipedia might well be headed for a civil war. I know it would radically change how I interact with the project, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
(Granted, many people probably would see that as one more good reason to ban Giano--- hehee).
Alec