[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>:

> I'm not convinced that in this case we're dealing with an Awbrey sock. Among
> other issues this one takes a more moderate stance than Awbrey has
> previously
> about the role of experts. Awbrey socks should of course be blocked on
> sight.
> ******
> Here's the rub: I have no doubt that Awbrey would show intense interest in
> whatever evidence and logic JzG might provide in a public list such as this
> to convince you that he was dealing with an Awbrey sock.

Obviously true, and if he is convinced that this is another Awbrey sock, he's
welcome to provide evidence for that by email. Furthermore, note that I didn't
say that I didn't think this was an Awbrey sock, merely that I wasn't
convinced.

>
> I do not endorse the tone of some of JzG's comments (scold, scold - set the
> right example, dude).
>
> I do sympathize with his frustration: quite a few people abuse the concept
> of AGF to assume bad faith on the part of those of us who do the hard work
> of deciphering these cases and acting upon them.  Dan Tobias's posts,
> although civil, frequently cross that line.
>
> Want a recent example?  See the workshop of the recent Alkivar case.  Even
> though the Committee reached a unanimous decision after seeing my evidence,
> some Wikipedians were all too ready to presume I had some sort of grudge
> against Alkivar.  They didn't even inquire what interaction Alkivar and I
> had outside of events directly related to that case (virtually none) and
> what good faith motive I might have had for investigating the
> Alkivar-Burntsauce situation (I had been one of the leading investigators on
> JB196 and was following up on that).  Never mind that I had also disclosed
> the greater part of that evidence to trusted Wikipedians outside the
> Committee, and not a single one objected to my findings either privately or
> publicly.
>
> If you attempt to erect a standard whereby each of us sleuths must describe
> the full details of our work on the complicated cases in public to
> everyone's full satisfaction, then no one will be pleased.  We are not going
> to do that in public - the information would be too valuable to the very
> people we work so hard to foil - and the question itself is profoundly
> discourteous.  People who don't do this hard work, and who have no intention
> of doing this work, cannot expect those of us who do to treble our workload
> for your entertainment.
>
> -Durova

No argument there. The notion that we would of forcing all ArbCom 
evidence to be
public is very bad a many different levels. Transparency is a great ideal, but
it needs to be balanced by pragmatic considerations.