QUOTE
Unanswered questions
This RFC is MOSTLY about transparency -vs- secrecy. There are some unanswered questions that I think the community has the need (and the right) to know.
1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?
This is relevant to considering Durova's behavior. If the evidence was generally sound, it's less of a big deal. If the evidence was completely tenuous, it's a reason to question her judgment. The community has a right and a need to know which it is. The Enemies of the Project already have a copy, so there's no harm in letting the rest of us see it to-- either post it here, or people will wind up going to look for it at the BADSITES, and nobody wants that.
2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?
A full list of the names that the evidence was emailed to should be furnished. If Durova picked a representative sample of unbiased, respected admins, then that speaks to her credit. If she picked a select group which seemed predisposed to have an opinion, that suggests her judgment might be poor. The community needs to know which it is.
3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?
If everyone emailed back endorsing the block, Durova had good reason to suspect her logic was correct. If everyone emailed back opposing the block but Durova ignored them, that points to poor judgment. The community needs to know what the feedback was.
Relatedly, if anyone noticed the evidence was erroneous, they should be commended. If anyone endorsed the block, failing to see that the evidence was in error, we should know it, so that the community can devote a little more scrutiny to their judgment in the future, to prevent this sort of thing happening again.
These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFC is MOSTLY about transparency -vs- secrecy. There are some unanswered questions that I think the community has the need (and the right) to know.
1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?
This is relevant to considering Durova's behavior. If the evidence was generally sound, it's less of a big deal. If the evidence was completely tenuous, it's a reason to question her judgment. The community has a right and a need to know which it is. The Enemies of the Project already have a copy, so there's no harm in letting the rest of us see it to-- either post it here, or people will wind up going to look for it at the BADSITES, and nobody wants that.
2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?
A full list of the names that the evidence was emailed to should be furnished. If Durova picked a representative sample of unbiased, respected admins, then that speaks to her credit. If she picked a select group which seemed predisposed to have an opinion, that suggests her judgment might be poor. The community needs to know which it is.
3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?
If everyone emailed back endorsing the block, Durova had good reason to suspect her logic was correct. If everyone emailed back opposing the block but Durova ignored them, that points to poor judgment. The community needs to know what the feedback was.
Relatedly, if anyone noticed the evidence was erroneous, they should be commended. If anyone endorsed the block, failing to see that the evidence was in error, we should know it, so that the community can devote a little more scrutiny to their judgment in the future, to prevent this sort of thing happening again.
These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(An aside- Hi Alec, just to say that that's not necessarily wholly what it's about, personally I just don't like someone acting as if they are above the rules, above using the huge amount of facilities we have for dispute resolution. Not just this block, but over several blocks. What went on behind the scenes isn't so important to me as how the other editor was treated. Although of course it was also a huge lack of assumption of good faith and a perceived belief that there are some editors who don't deserve civility, even if they aren't vandals or anything. I also wonder why Durova chose !! to pick on, was it just his name? If he were a sophisticated sleeper troll, he would have chosen a more insipid name. Anyway, everyone please answer Alec's questions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
* Names? I know who some of those who received the "evidence" were, am I allowed to say? or will I be blocked again. Giano (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It'd be better for Durova to do that, honestly, insofar as it will help us assess her stance on the whole opacity-vs-transparency. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Tick Tick Tick Tick
That was over 12 hours ago folks.
Perfectly normal questions, that could be answered without any loss of privacy. Loss of face to Durova? Sure. But don't hold your breath for the answer. As in all of the Durova story, most of the discussion is taking place without her participation.
