QUOTE
Should we restart Durova's RfC or Arbcom?
Yesterday I had a short chat with Durova and I got an impression that she is very unhappy that the community did not heard her side of the story. The RfC was closed because of the Arbcom and voting by the Arbcom members on the decision started then she had no chances to present her evidence. Basically there was only Thanksgiving holidays between starting of Arbcom and getting into the voting stage almost if the members of the Arbitration committee had a preconceived opinion and were not interested in Durova's side of the story. I am not in a position to explain her side of the story but as I understand she was under the tremendous pressure caused by the real-life stalking and harassment due to her involvement into investigations of a few high-profile cases and she had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was).
On the other hand it looks like there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the two mailing lists that probably needs to be addressed by some investigation. Finally, it may be worth to give people possibility to discuss all the good work Durova did before the incident as many people only heard of her in relation to the bad block.
What do you think might be a correct format for such a discussion: Arbcom seems to excessive as no forceful remedies would probably come out of it. On the other hand a significant amount of evidence might not be open (e.g. different E-mails) that is not very good fit into the format of an RfD Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please withdraw that, Alex. I respect your concern and am very grateful, but this is too much of a hot potato. I don't think it would do any good to try that right now. If my reputation takes a hit, so be it. The drama hasn't been a good thing. Maybe these ideas would work later, once things calm down. Thank you. DurovaCharge! 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I had a short chat with Durova and I got an impression that she is very unhappy that the community did not heard her side of the story. The RfC was closed because of the Arbcom and voting by the Arbcom members on the decision started then she had no chances to present her evidence. Basically there was only Thanksgiving holidays between starting of Arbcom and getting into the voting stage almost if the members of the Arbitration committee had a preconceived opinion and were not interested in Durova's side of the story. I am not in a position to explain her side of the story but as I understand she was under the tremendous pressure caused by the real-life stalking and harassment due to her involvement into investigations of a few high-profile cases and she had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was).
On the other hand it looks like there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the two mailing lists that probably needs to be addressed by some investigation. Finally, it may be worth to give people possibility to discuss all the good work Durova did before the incident as many people only heard of her in relation to the bad block.
What do you think might be a correct format for such a discussion: Arbcom seems to excessive as no forceful remedies would probably come out of it. On the other hand a significant amount of evidence might not be open (e.g. different E-mails) that is not very good fit into the format of an RfD Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please withdraw that, Alex. I respect your concern and am very grateful, but this is too much of a hot potato. I don't think it would do any good to try that right now. If my reputation takes a hit, so be it. The drama hasn't been a good thing. Maybe these ideas would work later, once things calm down. Thank you. DurovaCharge! 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)