[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[Alec Conroy]

> 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.

On a list of "people who already believe in bigfoot"--  seems to fly
afoul of CANVASSing.

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.

To say that the community & arbcom have no business whatsoever in
examine who those people were and what they told her.

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.

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 "

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.

Now, I personally suspect it's more generic privacy concerns and
embarassment that are keeping the secrets still secret.  But think
about how this looks.  The community is being told:

-An admin indef blocked somebody.
-She won't tell you why-- at least at first.
-She won't tell you what evidence she presented.
-She won't tell you who she presented it to.
-She'll promise you that many people have been consulted in depth and
many have endorsed the block, but when pressed, she refuses to say
who.
-She won't tell you who her co-sleuths are.
-She won't tell you what evidence her co-sleuths presented against !!

It's just not acceptable.  It's a RECIPE for schism, paranoia and
drama.   I don't believe in a cabal, but seriously-- could you work
any harder to convince our critics that Wikipedia is cabalistic?

Arbcom has a right to know every word that any administrator said
leading up to the block of !!.  When you get the bit, you give up your
right to keep secrets from arbcom about the opinion you proffer about
who should be blocked.  If personal privacy is that important to you,
resign and we don't have to worry about your standard for indef
blocking.  If you got hte bit, you gotta fess up and let arbcom review
your conversations.

Given the circumstances, I think !! has  right to know what falsehoods
were discussed  about him also, but perhaps others disagree.

Alec