On 11/29/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
"People" are doing their best to draw conclusions based on limited information, in the face of other people doing their best to keep the information away. It's true that nobody can prove that five people approved the block, but based on Durova's remarks, that's the most likely scenario.
However, since a number of people have insisted that such discussions did not take place on any public mailing list we were aware of and therefore could only have been in private correspondence, to keep insisting otherwise is getting very close to accusing people of lying, wouldn't you say?
I'm not sure if Durova's exact words were that others had approved the block or others had simply agreed with her that the user was suspicious - can anyone clarify?
-Matt
The origin of this belief is probably this statement by Durova "This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this. I think I've said that enough times clearly - I opened this thread for exactly that purpose. More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)" (From AN/I)
Unless something's been oversighted, nothing else she says in the timeframe from block to unblock can really account for the belief, *assuming* it comes from a statement on en-wiki, and not on the mailing list or whatnot.
Cheers WilyD