On 11/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@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.
It is difficult for people on all sides of this issue to recognize that what Arbcom members do as individual editors does not equate to what the committee does as a separate entity. It was probably not appropriate for an individual Arbcom member to *ask* for a copy of the post when in all likelihood the matter was going to be brought to the committee's attention. Many admins asked for and received copies of the post but did not forward it to the Arbcom mailing list as "confidential evidence" in order for Arbcom to open a case. Durova, despite the fact she was referring questions to Arbcom, did not send them a copy of the post. Everyone could have done better on this one.
There is now a motion to close the case. Let's all try to learn some lessons from this and put them into action rather than spending the next month pointing fingers at all and sundry.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l