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

[jayjg]

On Nov 27, 2007 11:12 AM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:04:44 -0700, Bryan Derksen
> > <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> A major line is crossed when that "private letting-off of steam" results
> >> in administrators blocking users and then refusing to reveal why they
> >> did it, though. This wasn't just some private venting session that leaked.
> >> If an administrator were to block someone with the explanation "I ran
> >> this by some people on an IRC channel and they okayed it, but I can't
> >> tell you who or where or why", that would quite rightly result in a
> >> furore. "Some people on an IRC channel" don't have any authority to okay
> >> anything.
> >
> > I completely agree.  I think I've even said as much.  The point here
> > is that this would not mean it was IRC that was to blame for the
> > cock-up, it would be the admin's fault.
>
> I would also want to know who "some people" were, and whether they
> really thought they had the authority to okay this or if the admin was
> just blowing smoke about having their support.
>
> If Durova "simply screwed up", fine, her bad. But if there's a group of
> like-minded editors who were colluding on this and she just happens to
> have had the bad luck to take the fall, I don't want the rest to meekly
> and secretively creep back to whatever they were doing behind closed
> doors that resulted in this happening. I want to make sure this attitude
> and this bad process is rooted out.


Bryan, I've read through this e-mail thread, and in it I see both
Matthew and Guy saying clearly and unequivocally that Durova did not
even *propose* blocking !! on the private lists, much less get
approval for it. Do you think they are both lying?