[WikiEN-l] Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/30/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Unblocked is not exonerated.     Showing that the whole process was a
farce is exonerated.  If nobody leaked the "secret evidence", everyone
would assume that there was probably SOMETHING to the evidence, just
not enough evidence to convict, as it were.


>
> 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.

Well, the whole project now knows about the mailing lists.  We know
that the next time to apparently unrelated admins show up with the
same opinion, you have to think for a second before automatically
assuming they are acting independently.


> I can and do AGF about Giano's motives, but his actions were still abusive.
The only thinkg I can find wrong with Giano's behavior is:
1. He should have posted the evidence off-site to 100% avoid even the
appearance of a copyright claim.
2.  He should not have readded text that was deleted.

But publishing the actual "evidence"-- that was  a moral imperative.

Alec