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

[jayjg]

On Nov 27, 2007 3:11 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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".

No, Risker stated "there seem to be administrators posting in this
thread who feel that such actions are perfectly acceptable." Posting
in this thread, not elsewhere. Risker must know who he meant when he
said that.