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

[Sam Blacketer]

On Nov 29, 2007 10:09 PM, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not sure if Durova's exact words were that others had approved the
> block or others had simply agreed with her that the user was
> suspicious - can anyone clarify?
>

The full quote:

"Roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from
the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who
had checkuser privileges. I did not run this through the Committee formally
and received no explicit assurance that any checkuser had been run. I
discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths
like myself. The information was actually very simple to disprove with one
key fact one fact. None of the people who responded had access to that key
fact. The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic. I'm
certain we all would have changed our minds immediately if that key
information had been available to us."
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Lawrence_Cohen
)

This is unclear to the extent that Durova does not say to which particular
aspect the responses were "postive to enthusiastic"; many people have been
jumping to the conclusion that this was to a proposal to block !!, but it
could just have been to the suggestion that !! was a reincarnation of
another user.

-- 
Sam Blacketer
London E15