Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally a good thing. They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear of the press or random trolls getting involved. They can allow for thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem. They allow for the possibility of peer oversight.
It is also true that in some cases this may not be enough. In the case we are all examining here, the problem was that the admin in question made a bad error by not waiting for someone else (or multiple someone elses) to confirm what was quite clearly going to be an edgy block *at best* (and a complete injustice, as worst, which is of course what it turned out to be).
It would be a shame if the response to this, culturally, would be a feeling that "you should not consult privately with your peers if you are not sure, out of fear of being labelled an evil secret cabal". The correct response is: don't make controversial blocks based on secret evidence... the riskier the block the more need for broad feedback first... don't block in cases of this sort without asking the party in question first what is going on... don't block in cases of this sort when there is no immediate emergency... etc.
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo