[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[George Herbert]

On Nov 30, 2007 11:17 AM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom.
>
> If you have private data that the community needs to know about, that
> will reveal severe admin misuse of tools, that will simultaneously
> exonerate an honest man--  you let the community have it.
>
> The community IS the arbcom, except in the rare cases when the
> community can't make up its mind.   As we saw in this case, once the
> community had the "evidence", there was substantial consensus about
> it.  The whole arbcom case actually turned out not be needed.
>
> Arbcom does not run this place-- the community runs this place, with
> HELP when needed from arbcom.   Alot of people have that upside down,
> with the view that "the community shouldn't worry its pretty little
> head over these things-- let the grownups at arbcom talk about it.
>

If that email had been the only way to exonerate !! and !! had still been
blocked at the time, and there hadn't already been an arbitration case about
the incident started, then there'd be some credibility to that viewpoint.

As is, !! had been unblocked already and exonerated, and the Arbcom case was
already going and at least some of the Arbitrators were aware of the email.

I think we do need to have and protect people willing to whistleblow on
actual malfeasance should it happen.  But that's not even remotely what
happened here.  The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and
disruption.

A lot of people got upset by discovering things via this case, and got
indignant about it.  Indignation is fine.  But it's not an excuse to break
the rules.  When you confuse indignation and whistleblowing you cross the
line from grey into dark grey.

I can and do AGF about Giano's motives, but his actions were still abusive.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com