I see absolutely nothing wrong with the email chain pondering about legal repercussions for people engaged in online harrassment, it's a discussion that is occurring in a wide variety of venues including plenty of other mailing lists, the popular press, and governments.  It would've been different if it had been people organizing to try to create legal consequences for a particular Wikimedian, but as far as I can see it wasn't.  Frankly, I don't see anything in that discussion skimming through it that couldn't have taken place on-wiki, and I've seen discussions not dissimilar to it take place on-wiki.  I wouldn't like to see a discussion aiming to create legal consequences for a particular contributor here generally speaking, because if it was unjustified it would be shitty on our part, and if it was justified this list is frankly speaking a terrible mechanism for organizing around it, but I see nothing wrong with talking about it in abstract. 

I don't see anything wrong with talking about the merits of particular arbcom candidates even if it results in a chunk of list members voting as a group. Arbcom's functioning has a pretty significant linkage with the health of ENWP's community, and whether or not sexism, racism, etc are accepted.  The on-wiki voter guides are not dissimilar, and I would bet money they have a more significant block vote effect than any discussion here will.  I don't like the suggestion of using editathons to create a cabal of new voters, but it's not a suggestion that was implemented, didn't gain significant support here, and bluntly pretty impractical.  I would take issue with people actively using the list to organize a voting bloc of people who don't regularly edit, but that didn't happen and I doubt there will be a situation where that will happen. I don't see a point in taking mod action against someone who makes a suggestion that is made in good faith but isn't terribly appropriate, especially given that we *need* innovative ideas if we're likely to make a dent in anything, and it's unsurprising that some brainstormed ideas won't be viable because they violate community norms too strongly. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with people organizing editathons specifically about ENWP's governance structures or the problems in them even if they contained plenty of opinion as long as they weren't actively trying to create a bloc of voters who just took instructions about how to vote from other people.