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

[jayjg]

On Nov 27, 2007 12:02 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 10:16 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Regarding a reasonable reaction to the sockpuppeting claim, as Matthew
> > points out "She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a
> > returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in
> > making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a
> > banned user
> > grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other
> > possibilities."
> >
>
>
> Yes, of course. That's really what everyone said after the block, on the
> noticeboards even when the evidence was not known. The question is why
> nobody said that who actually saw the evidence. The expectation of some of
> us is because nobody thought it was that big a deal. This is not
> representative of the project in general. Again, an echo chamber.
>
> RR

I think I'm mostly going to quote Matthew from now one, because he's
pretty much already said it all, in this very thread:

"Unfortunately Durova did not run this block past either list.  She
posted an email laying out why !! appeared to be a returned user to
the cyberstalking list,
which I did not read until after she did the block (the list has been
quite high volume) but did not to the best of my knowledge give anyone
any indication that she was going to block."

It appears that Durova said "This is a returning user", and the small
number who actually read the e-mail thought "yeah, you're probably
right". Why would anything more be required?