There's been a lot of speculation about what I mean and what I think the community and the arbcom is entitled to. Let me set it straight. Assuming Durova is not lying, here's what we know:
1. According to Durova, she posted her "evidence" to the cyberstalking list, roughly two weeks prior to the block (exact date would be nice).
2. Although the email does not EXPLICILTLY propose blocking !!, it certainly accuses him of blockable behavior. Any reasonable person who read it in any depth would should have anticipated a block or else warned her about the block.
3. Acording to Durova, she had "in depth" discussions with "five sleuths" who "enthusaistically endorsed" the block. According to multiple sources, these "in depth" discussions didn not occur on the cyberstalking list-- they occured elsewhere-- either on the investigation list, through email, or somwhere else.
4. The community and the arbcom committie have a right to know who the "sleuths" were that "endorsed" the block, and what text did they use whe discussing that blacok. (or alernatively, if Durova lied and there were no such people).
We have to know for a couple reasons: * To scrutinize further actions from the individiuals to make sure they don't repeat the lapse of judgment. * To re-evaluage their past behavior to "double-check" for any lapse in judgment. * So that the electorate can decide whether or not the comments have any weight in the coming arbcom elections.
So, the emails that I feel are requested are specifically the discussions of !! in which "five sleuths" decided to "enthusastically" endorse a block.
At this point ,there can be no doubt that these people are aware that they have been asked to step forward. The fact that this hasn't happened leads to various conclusions-- all bad:
- Perhaps the people do not exist, Durova's statements are just a pack of falsehoods. - Perhaps the people do exist and their emails were misinterpreted and don't show any misjudgment-- but htese people don't trust the community & the committee to properly assess this fact. - Perhaps the email really do show direct lack of judgment, but hte people wish to hide their misjudgment so as to avoid embarassment. - Perhaps the emails show lack of judgment, and people are willing to hide this fact from the community in order to increase their chances of being elected to arbcom.
Thus far, people have been content to refer to people just as "five sleuths"-- but there are individuals who CLAIM the know the identities of the 'sleuths'. Thus far, we haven't devolved to that level of discussion, and I personally don't know, I won't make any specific accusations about what I do not know. But some people know (or else think they know) you can bet that before voting starts, specific accusations are going to start flying. I'm not endorsing that behavior, I'm just predicting it's a little future scenario.
The best thing for everyone is for people to step up, trust the committie and the community, and say "yep-- I endorsed the block, it was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again".
Alec