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

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/27/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Unless you assume that the purpose of the cyberstalking list is to
> block users, then there's no reason to assume that those who actually
> read the e-mail (and it's unclear how many people did so) would
> imagine that Durova was planning to do so.

Jay, I think you're a tad late to the discussion somehow.  Go read
Durova's Evidence.  She clearly accuses !! of being a "ripened sock" ,
a "troublemaker", and a "troll", and working with a "team" of other
users.

It's fine to assume that many people who recieved the email did not
read it.  It's not plausible to assume anyone who did read it came
away thinking Durova did not intend to block (or request a block) of
!!.   That is a patently absurd claim.

Futhermore, we KNOW some people did get the message that a block was
coming because they discussed it "in depth" and "enthusiastically"
endorsed the block.   Are you accusing Durova of lying about this?
Are you somehow implying she fabricated the story?   Of course you're
not-- so let's dispense with the "Maybe nobody even knew she was
contemplating a block" red herring--  it's beneath us all.



>> This isn't about individuals, its about processes.

> why then are people like Alec insisting that they must known the
> names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking?

Because we need to rebut the claim that Durova essentially went rogue
and just did this on her own, as people are trying to claim.
Durova's being scapegoated as a "lone gunman" who "acted alone" in
order to prevent other members of her group being exposed to the
light.   If this succeeds, we will have changed nothing-- we won't
have stopped the militia-esque, we  won't have stopped the people who
are distressed by those practicies-- we'll just have stripped a good
admin of her rank,  and hte problem will persist.

Unless Durova's a liar, there are roughly five people  who had "in
depth" involvement--  and their judgement is just as flawed as
Durova's was.

The community feedback that was prompted by Durova's judgement lapse
led to her resigning as an admin.  Other admins may fare differently,
but the community has a right to have that conversation.

If anyone is every going to trust ANY of the admins who are suspected
of involvment with this, the few people who were involved need to
stand up and let the community can discuss what  needs to be done.
Hiding behing a magic cloak of anonymity and secrecy  is not an option
if this encyclopedia is to have any sort of integrity.

Alec