Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And to be absolutely clear here, if I were to block
someone on the
basis of information I could not easily share it would only be
*after* running it by the arbitrators. I already emailed details of
at least one block to arbcom-l. That still does not make it
anyone's call but my own.
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process.
From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of
admin actions such as blocking. Running things by the Arbcom *before*
taking administrative action means that any appeals will be against a
stacked deck.
We should not neglect here the obvious interpretation:
that Durova
simply screwed up. Some of us have been somewhat taken aback, and
may have learned something from it. But ultimately it was Durova's
call and she has taken a real beating for it. The same has happened
with blocks resulting from misjudgment of conversations on IRC, I
seem to recall. I used to be very anti-IRC until I tried it.
Durova is not the problem. (Nor was Slim Virgin in an earlier drama.)
By all appearances she has accepted responsibility for her actions, has
been desysopped for her role, and in time (like anyone else who has been
blocked or otherwise punished) can redeem herself. To someone who has
followed this list with any degree of regularity it is easy to see which
Queen has been a consistent actor in these dramas.
It's not clear to me what mechanism other than a
private discussion
could possibly satisfy the purpose of victims discussing harassment.
If this had carried on with cc lists instead of a mailing list there
would be no effective difference.
Private discussions alone are not the problem.
We all engage in them at
some level. Discussing harassment is not the problem; using those
discussions in a conspiracy to harass someone that that private group
doesn't like is.
Ec