On 27/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@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@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.