[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/29/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at 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.

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.    But many people feel posting "secret evidence" to a
"secret list" might, in itself, being involved in the policy.  If so,
Giano would be doing a GOOD thing by revealing the "evidence"--
bringing to light a problem in the community.

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.

How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on
their own behavior?

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.

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.

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