On Nov 27, 2007 9:21 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:30:22 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a short few points from another in the thick of it;
- I submitted private information to Guy via email, which he shared
with this list despite my asking him clearly not to
You think. But that's not actually what I said. I said I shared it with a few trusted individuals, and that's what I did.
- Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me,
and then reviewed that block.
Fellow *admins* reviewed that block. There was also a discussion on the admin noticeboards. And the consensus was that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive, but that you should be allowed to continue editing with one account.
This is the point at which my remarks, and those of others on the Durova thread, on the 'echo chamber' of these lists becomes relevant: the subsequent discussion at the admin noticeboard, where some people already seemingly have their minds made up in advance of those seeing the information for the first time. This is bad structure for efficient decisionmaking if those seeing the evidence for the first time aren't really representative of opinion.
Your block was based 100% on your on-wiki behaviour, which is precisely why your arbitration case looks set to endorse the view that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive.
No you;re not, you are undergoing an arbitration case which looks set to endorse the finding that your use of EIGHT separate accounts was well outside policy and community consensus.
I had no idea that voting had begun. Lets not pre-judge that one, shall we? There are a few issues involved there which you're both glossing over.
RR