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

[James Farrar]

On 27/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/27/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The fact that ANY administrator believed that a pre-emptive block of a
> > > > possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour is the problem. It is a
> > > > systemic issue and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Durova
> > > is
> > > > the only administrator who thought that way; in fact, there seem to be
> > > > administrators posting in this thread who feel that such actions are
> > > > perfectly acceptable.
> > >
> > > Name them please.
>
> >On Nov 27, 2007 2:30 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, jayjg, let's put you in this situation.  You have elected for your own
> > [long hypothetical story snipped]
> >
> > Risker
>
> Risker, I asked you to name the admins who "believed that a
> pre-emptive block of a possible sockpuppet was acceptable behaviour."
> Name them please.

The point is that it's impossible to name them because their identity
is being kept a secret; they have been referred to only as "trusted
people". This is why such a fuss is being kicked up - by Durova's own
statements, some "trusted people" that she consulted "enthusiastically
endorsed" the !! block.

Durova should not be allowed to be the scapegoat in this. She made a
mistake which, when she realised it, she immediately corrected and
apologised, and then resigned her Adminship. These are worthy actions
and, if her re-application for Adminship were being made now, I would
unhesitatingly support it.

However, there are other "trusted people" who endorsed the mistake --
and they're staying silent as to their identity, allowing Durova to
take the fall for them. This is totally unacceptable. I call upon all
those who endorsed Durova's block to admit it and test the community's
faith in them.