[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/29/07, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at 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