On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 23:18 -0600, SlimVirgin wrote:
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were with,
and I see no
point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her
adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to
pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she
discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are,
because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback
-- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the
same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five
editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone,
misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There
is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
The point that some in this thread wanting to make, is that there's no
way for the community to know whether its the case Durova heard Y when X
was said, or whether she heard Y because that was what was said by the
people she discussed it with, unless what was discussed is known.
And if its the latter case, the community would want to know, as argued
by the editors wanting to know more, who those 5 were so that it can pay
a closer attention to their judgements.
There is no point in conducting a witchhunt if its the former case, but
the argument is that we cannot see (and hence decide) if it's actually
the latter case.
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine