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

[Alec Conroy]

There's been a lot of speculation about what I mean and what  I think
the community and the arbcom is entitled to.  Let me set it straight.
Assuming Durova is not lying, here's what we know:

1.  According to Durova, she posted her "evidence" to the
cyberstalking list, roughly two weeks prior to the block  (exact date
would be nice).

2.  Although the email does not EXPLICILTLY propose blocking !!, it
certainly accuses him of blockable behavior.  Any reasonable person
who read it in any depth would should have anticipated a block or else
warned her about the block.

3.  Acording to Durova, she had "in depth" discussions with "five
sleuths" who "enthusaistically endorsed" the block.   According to
multiple sources, these "in depth" discussions didn not occur on the
cyberstalking list-- they occured elsewhere-- either on the
investigation list, through email, or somwhere else.

4.  The community and the arbcom committie have a right to know who
the "sleuths" were that "endorsed" the block, and what text did they
use whe discussing that blacok.  (or alernatively, if Durova lied and
there were no such people).

We have to know for a couple reasons:
* To scrutinize further actions from the individiuals to make sure
they don't repeat the lapse of judgment.
* To re-evaluage their past behavior to "double-check" for any lapse
in judgment.
* So that the electorate can decide whether or not the comments have
any weight in the coming arbcom elections.

So, the emails that I feel are requested are specifically the
discussions of !! in which "five sleuths" decided to "enthusastically"
endorse a block.

At this point ,there can be no doubt that these people are aware that
they have been asked to step forward.  The fact that this hasn't
happened leads to various conclusions-- all bad:

- Perhaps the people do not exist, Durova's statements are just a pack
of falsehoods.
- Perhaps the people do exist and their emails were misinterpreted and
don't show any misjudgment-- but htese people don't trust the
community & the committee to properly assess this fact.
- Perhaps the email really do show direct lack of judgment, but hte
people wish to hide their misjudgment so as to avoid embarassment.
- Perhaps the emails show lack of judgment, and people are willing to
hide this fact from the community in order to increase their chances
of being elected to arbcom.

Thus far, people have been content to refer to people just as "five
sleuths"-- but there are individuals who CLAIM the know the identities
of the 'sleuths'.  Thus far, we haven't devolved to that level of
discussion, and I personally don't know, I won't make any specific
accusations about what I do not know.   But some people know (or else
think they know)  you can bet that before voting starts, specific
accusations are going to start flying.   I'm not endorsing that
behavior, I'm just predicting it's a little future scenario.

The best thing for everyone is for people to step up, trust the
committie and the community, and say "yep-- I endorsed the block, it
was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again".

Alec