[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[Ray Saintonge]

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