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

[jayjg]

On Nov 30, 2007 9:54 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2007 2:22 AM, Relata Refero <refero.relata at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 30, 2007 12:52 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't see any difference between an investigation and a block?
> > > > Need I remind you that only blocking is an admin action? Need I also
> > > > remind you that the thrust of Durova's investigation appears to have
> > > > been that !! was the reincarnation of a previous experienced editor;
> > > > which, of course, was quite true?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You have completely ignored the tone of the "report", the clear
> > > statement that the 'evidence' is a demonstration not merely that !! is
> > > a returning editor, but that !! is one of 'them' who share information
> > > from a 'playbook' on how to disrupt WP. I can only assume you have
> > > either not yet read it, or that you have read it and are still unable
> > > to see that most people who read it more than cursorily will
> > > understand that the clear implication is that !! is blockworthy.
> >
> > Oddly enough, while this implication is obvious to you, people who are
> > actually on the list have stated quite clearly that they saw no reason
> > to think Durova was going to block !!, and, apparently, no-one else on
> > the list did either. This has also been the impression of unrelated
> > individuals reading this discussion, in this very thread. It appears
> > that, as I stated before, the view that it is "obvious" that Durova
> > was planning to block !! 15 days after she posted that e-mail is based
> > on hindsight, bad faith, and circular reasoning.
> >
>
> Jayjg, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=172950068
> for why people believe "some 5 other editors" had good knowledge
> Durova was planning a block.

WilyD, it would be helpful if you were to either disengage from this
discussion, or actually read all the posts in the thread. That
specific statement of Durova's has been discussed in several posts,
and more than one person has said that her statement is ambiguous at
best, and in no way indicates that 5 people actually pre-approved her
*block*.