On Dec 3, 2007 4:12 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think a more realistic version is believing that Durova didn't intend to block YET because she hadn't enough evidence.
That's certainly a valid possibility-- readers might not have thought block would happen immediately. My point is just that it's clear to anyone reading the email that blocking certainly something under consideration. I mean, that's the whole point of the email-- a guide to finding users who should potentially be blocked as socks. And I'll just have to leave it to faith that had anyone actually read the email, they would have immediately had the judgment to raise a red flag and inform Durova her sleuthing was a bad idea-- certainly, the community vocally responded in that direction once THEY get to read her email.
Some did, anyway. And they had the singular advantage of 20-20 hindsight.
Now, there were a lot of people on the cyberstalking- but as misfortune would have it, none of those people gave Durova's email more than a cursory glance. No recipients replied, and certainly no one 'enthusiastically' endorsed the block (except for the five figments of Durova's overactive imagination). So apparently the only one who had any judgment problem is Durova, and she's now be desysopped, so that is that.
So, recognizing that that horse is most dead, I'll just nod my head agreeably and move on-- the identities of anyone else who was involved in the incident will just remain the subject of quiet speculation rather than public confession. That's okay-- Durova has agreed to be the designated sacrificial lamb for the sleuthing meta-issue, and I'll try to shut up about the whole "who were the other sleuths" issue.
Just don't anyone try to claim Durova didn't even discuss the !! situation on the list in a way that might indicate a block was coming down the road. The evidence on that one is already out, and there's only SO much spin I can hear without overtly snickering. :)
Anybody familiar with the posts on this topic on wikien-l and who still insists that the only reasonable assumption of someone who read Durova's evidence was that !! was in danger of a block, is either incompetent or insincere.