In this case, you had more to do with it. I was locked out of DIscourse so couldn’t contact a mod. You could, and did, and that’s what got the post unhidden. If that hadn’t been unhidden in a timely way, I believe at least one of those “press contacts” would have gone live with “the story” before night came.
In some other cases, you had nothing to do with it, and still don’t know about them. And I expect the reverse is also true.
I spelled it out here because, in context, I seemed to be being accused of trying to damage the PSF. You weren’t. But I believe I misread Greg’s post, and posted a quite different reply in the topic where it belongs. Where followups to this little digression should also go.
I hope people appreciate that it’s actually quite difficult for some of us to discuss CoC enforcement at this time while pretending there isn’t an elephant in the room. I don’t want that to be focus here either. But concrete examples can also be enormously clarifying when weighing abstractions, like test-driving a new API prototype. At least I hope I can use my own ban as an example without being charged with “publishing private information without permission” (which, no, I never did either, no more than I divulged Guido’s involvement in the current anecdote - that was up to him).
And, sorry, but I don’t think that’s really irrelevant here. How did we end up with a process where even plainly false charges can survive review by 2 groups comprising 17 people in total? It’s unfathomable to me. At a bare minimum, at least try once to ask the accused what they have to say about a contemplated charge?
Maybe MAL can run a poll about adding “ask questions” to the SC’s CoC enforcement duties.