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

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/27/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?


One of the things that isn't included in this thread is hte email
Durova sent to the list.  If you haven't seen it, go read it, and
you'll see why we're all so stressed out by this.  There isn't a
person on the encyclopedia who couldn't be banned by this sort of
kangaroo court, if someone had an ax to grind.  And if the discussions
are secret, they'll never even know they were being suspected--
they'll just wake up banned one day, just like !!.

Durova DID post the "evidence" to the list, and members of that list
DID reply back to her "enthusiastically endorsing" the block. (or so
she says, and I believe her).

Even if she didn't explicitly propose banning, she did explicitly
accuse !! of being a sockpuppet of a WR user.  And what do we do with
Sockpuppets of WR users?  Just because she didn't say the magic word
"I'm gonna ban them", it was obvious where it was going.  Anyone who
read hte email and responded with anything other than "Are you crazy,
this is NOT sufficient evidence to prove he's a sockpuppet" needs
looking at, because I think the community wouldn't trust their
judgment anymore than it trusts Durova's.

Alec