[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[Matthew Brown]

On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on
> their own behavior?

I cannot.  However, this case is not about it, so the point is moot.

> 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.

If Giano had never behaved questionably before, I would not be voting
for banning him.

> 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.

Why?  Durova's block of !! (what this case is actually about) *was
never even discussed on that list*.  I wish it would have been; it
would have given me a chance to look at the evidence and try and
convince her otherwise.

-Matt