[WikiEN-l] Durova/!! matter now in newspaper.

[Charlotte Webb]

On 12/4/07, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> But we (or I) used to think admins and arbiters were above
> suspicious for off-wiki mailing list.

My last two cents on this issue (I promise):

Almost everybody uses some form of off-wiki communication. This
applies to arbitrators [1], regular admins, banned users, and every
"user in good standing" floating somewhere in-between. Most of us use
at least one private [2] form. There is nothing inherently wrong about
this. The actual problem is when one says their decision was based on
a private discussion, then refuses to specify whom they consulted, or
what was actually said.

I could easily claim that I have At Least 100 [3] people supporting my
next action, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe a word of it.
Even the most trusting observers would, inwardly, still assume I was
referring to some militia of random noobs with no real idea what
they're supporting, or why. If I said it was one person, I'd again be
laughed at, though not as much. Five is, of course, the ideal number.

I guess the moral of this story is that it doesn't matter whether you
spoke to five people, or zero, you don't want to refer to
correspondence which, due to its private (or fictitious) nature,
cannot be divulged or corroborated, particularly not in defense of
your own actions, and even if it was the underlying reason.

The other moral is that even a half-assed lie is often more believable
then the truth.

—C.W.

[1] And I can't resist asking you, Alec, to either stop saying
"arbiters" or go back to playing StarCraft.
[2] Though not necessarily "secret", per se (there has, as you might
remember, a lengthy and needless semantic debate on this).
[3] Don't even ask.