[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[jayjg]

On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:32 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 2007 10:21 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
> > > > > <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence"
> > email,
> > > > > >no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves.  Flonight
> > and
> > > > > >Morven are currently the deciding votes in a  split-decision at the
> > > > > >Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the
> > > > > >evidence that exonerated !!.
> > > >
> > > > > The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for
> > > > > Giano to post anything.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big
> > > > splash, i.e. drama-queening.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - d.
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
> > the
> > > Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
> > a
> > > copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw
> > > Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
> >
> > The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post
> > with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to
> > AN/I.
>
>
> The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours*
> before Giano posted it on AN/I.

Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I
mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's
posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post
it is not accurate.