On Nov 30, 2007 9:42 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:38 -0500, jayjg wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 2:22 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Where the hell did bad faith come in in the above discussion???
The cyberstalking list's stated purpose is for Wikipedia's victims of cyberstalking to discuss their issues and come up with ways of dealing with it. However, a persistent theme in this thread has been that members of the list created the list for the purpose of co-ordinating blocks, particularly of WR members - despite repeated statements to the contrary. That is where the bad faith comes in.