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

[Sam Blacketer]

On Nov 30, 2007 12:16 AM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Alec, how can people show you e-mails they say don't exist to begin
> with?
>
> I'm sorry, but to my knowledge, nobody has actually seriously said such
> conversations don't exist.


That's asking people to prove a negative. Has Durova, or has anyone else who
was actually party to discussions, said anything that indicates there ever
was a discussion offwiki on the specific subject of whether !! should be
banned?

Durova has said multiple times that there were in-depth discussions and
> enthusiastic support.


"In-depth discussions" of what, exactly? An in-depth discussion of the
suspicion that !! might be a reincarnation of a banned user, and
enthusiastic support for more investigation is not the same as enthusiastic
support for an immediate block.

The arbitration case has a stable majority for findings that require
administrators to account openly for their actions so far as possible, or
bring them to the attention of the Arbitration Committee if they feel
openness would be damaging. That seems to be proportionate to what happened
in this case; if the arbitrators felt in need of more evidence, they could
presumably demand it.

-- 
Sam Blacketer
London E15