On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/29/07, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We can't not enforce the policy if arbcom
members are some of the people
who
saw the private email in the first place.
It's not about preventing enforcement-- it's about the appearance of
impropriety.
Fine.
Well, here's the situation. There's some
debate within the community
about whether an email like Durova's was even proper to send in the
first place.
There is neither policy nor precedent that sending investigations emails to
private groups of Wikipedians is bad for the project or prohibited.
But many people feel posting "secret
evidence" to a
"secret list" might, in itself, being involved in the policy.
This does not parse...
If so,
Giano would be doing a GOOD thing by revealing the "evidence"--
bringing to light a problem in the community.
Obviously Giano did it because he thought people needed to know. Obviously,
also, whoever on the recipients list leaked to WR or wherever it's posted
now thought so as well.
Let's separate the "Pentagon Papers" aspect of whether the leak itself was
good or bad from whether Giano violated WP policy and precedent in posting
it repeatedly on-Wiki.
Regardless of the former, the latter is clearly true. None of our policies
have an "...Except when it's a whistleblower and it's real
important..."
escape clause.
Giano didn't have to do that; he could have referred to the leaked copy. He
knows the policy and knew it before this happened (I assume, based on his
extensive background). He chose to post in a manner which was violating
policy, and has to take his lumps for doing that.
Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this
case started, that
not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they
actively participated in it. Any ruling against addressing whether
"secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as
much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova.
Whether such lists are appropriate isn't an issue here.
Nobody has made a proposed finding of any sort that such lists be
discouraged or prohibited in the Arbcom case. The only proposed decision
elements were that they're outside the Committee's jurisdiction.
There's nothing standing at the moment for which a conflict of interest that
you describe applies.
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to
impartialy rule on
their own behavior?
They can't. But none of their behavior has been put up for arbitration as
misbehavior.
How, if it was clear-cut that Giano should be banned--
if it was right
down the line with all the arbiters saying "nope-- Giano crossed the
line" then okay, maybe it was no big deal. Instead, what we're
seeing, instead, is that the members of the mailing list are all
lining up FOR banning, while people who were excluded from the mailing
list are lining up against Giano's ban.
You don't know that for a fact. The full membership of each list is not in
evidence.
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have
been recused
from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they
should have been parties.
Again - the list is not at issue here.
For them to wide up being the tie-breaking votes---
that pretty much
shatters any appearance of impropriety-- and if Giano is banned
because of the votes of arbs who are under a bit of a clound, the long
term consequences for the project will be very very bad.
Alec
If Giano is NOT sanctioned for repeatedly and knowingly publishing private
correspondence then we're also in a situation where the long term
consequences are very very bad. That's been a large part of our civility
and decorum policies forever.
One of the reasons my participation in the cyberstalking list was somewhat
skeptical, while I was there, was a fear of discussions like this eventually
happening.
I was expecting to have the list itself become a focal point of controversy
eventually.
I was hoping rather optimistically that everything within touching distance
of the list would not be tarred and feathered in the process. However,
that's what's happening.
Yes, I know why a lot of people got very antsy when the list was disclosed.
No, that does not justify jumping immedately to labeling everything
associated with it sinister, conflicts of interest, etc.
No, that does not mean that it becomes a conflict of interest in unrelated
questions before Arbcom.
If you want to try and make the cases that these things are sinister or
conflicts of interest, you need to start at square one and logically build a
case out from the actual facts in evidence. The reason that this discussion
is failing rather badly is that cyberstalking-l opponents are by and large
intermixing actual fact with speculation with opinion freely, basing
conclusions on opinion and speculation as if they were actual fact.
You can't do that.
Well, you can; people do it from time to time, and demagoguery plays well in
the "press" as it were. But it's not good policy discussion or abuse
incident response.
If someone wants to build up actual serious charges of conflict of interest,
based on the actual facts, please feel free to do so. I don't see it, but I
am biased and involved, so I could be wrong.
If someone feels there was actual abusive behavior by "the inner circle",
based on the actual facts, please make a case based on those facts. Again,
I don't see it, but I could be wrong.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com