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

[jayjg]

On Nov 29, 2007 3:17 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 4:14 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
> > Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but
> > unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several
> > individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used
> > to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other
> > wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means).
> Rot. After the denials that the block was discussed on-list, the
> discussion has moved on. Move with it, don't keep on making the point
> you can make.

By the way, the denials were issued early on the 27th. Here are Alec's
statements from late on the 28th:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FDurova_and_Jehochman%2FEvidence&diff=174373287&oldid=174368023
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FDurova_and_Jehochman%2FEvidence&diff=174380576&oldid=174375899
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FDurova_and_Jehochman%2FEvidence&diff=174397088&oldid=174386654

Guy tells him again, he's wrong about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FDurova_and_Jehochman%2FEvidence&diff=174399286&oldid=174397088

No, but Alec knows better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FDurova_and_Jehochman%2FEvidence&diff=174400542&oldid=174399286