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

[Wily D]

On 11/29/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:52 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> > "People" are doing their best to draw conclusions based on limited
> > information, in the face of other people doing their best to keep the
> > information away.  It's true that nobody can prove that five people approved
> > the block, but based on Durova's remarks, that's the most likely scenario.
>
> However, since a number of people have insisted that such discussions
> did not take place on any public mailing list we were aware of and
> therefore could only have been in private correspondence, to keep
> insisting otherwise is getting very close to accusing people of lying,
> wouldn't you say?
>
> 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?
>
> -Matt
>
The origin of this belief is probably this statement by Durova
"This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am
very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally
confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by
some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit
it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and
then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As
I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge
this. I think I've said that enough times clearly - I opened this
thread for exactly that purpose. More than half a dozen administrators
have already seen this research. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 18 November 2007
(UTC)" (From AN/I)

Unless something's been oversighted, nothing else she says in the
timeframe from block to unblock can really account for the belief,
*assuming* it comes from a statement on en-wiki, and not on the
mailing list or whatnot.

Cheers
WilyD