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

[Wily D]

On 11/29/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 11:03 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I think it is quite possible that a reasonable person could have read it and
> assumed it was a springboard for further checking, rather than a proposal
> for an immediate 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.
> >
>
> No, I think you're going further than the evidence there. Durova did not say
> she had discussed blocking with these five, as the quoted passage shows. She
> said that their reaction to what she sent them was "positive to
> enthusiastic". She has not said that she sent them a proposal to block.
>
> I still get a strong sense that there is much less to this than meets the
> eye.
>
> --
> Sam Blacketer
> London E15
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Err, I missed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Lawrence_Cohen
< this response, but there Durova strongly suggests that five people
endorsed her reasoning after reviewing it in detail, if not explicitly
the block.

Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
WilyD