On 11/29/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:03 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
- Although the email does not EXPLICILTLY propose blocking !!, it
certainly accuses him of blockable behavior. Any reasonable person who read it in any depth would should have anticipated a block or else warned her about the block.
I think it is quite possible that a reasonable person could have read it and assumed it was a springboard for further checking, rather than a proposal for an immediate block.
- Acording to Durova, she had "in depth" discussions with "five
sleuths" who "enthusaistically endorsed" the block. According to multiple sources, these "in depth" discussions didn not occur on the cyberstalking list-- they occured elsewhere-- either on the investigation list, through email, or somwhere else.
No, I think you're going further than the evidence there. Durova did not say she had discussed blocking with these five, as the quoted passage shows. She said that their reaction to what she sent them was "positive to enthusiastic". She has not said that she sent them a proposal to block.
I still get a strong sense that there is much less to this than meets the eye.
-- Sam Blacketer London E15 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Err, I missed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem... < this response, but there Durova strongly suggests that five people endorsed her reasoning after reviewing it in detail, if not explicitly the block.
Sorry for any confusion I've caused. WilyD