From: Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk Tue Nov 27 23:26:58 UTC 2007
Oh, and your recollection of certain other events isn't entirely accurate either. "First, I had almost nothing to do with the investigations list and have virtually no knowledge of it". This is, in fact, simply not true. I have in front my eyes a fair few of your posts to that list, which nicely display you fully aware of that list and actively participating in the merry "sleuthing". My picture is crystal-clear - my own eyes! 5 or 6 posts? Ok, not massive, but really quite busy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreschi, your assumption of bad faith is disappointing and it's creating unnecessary toxicity around this subject.
I am telling you again that I had very little to do with the investigations list, and if you've seen the posts to it, you'll know that's true. I believe it was created to separate discussions about general sockpuppetry from the cyberstalking list. It never had much traffic that I recall, and I also don't recall any mention of !! on it -- though I didn't read most of the mail, so it's possible I missed it.
As for the cyberstalking list, I am telling you, as others have, that there was no discussion on it about whether to block !!. Durova posted a "case study" on November 3 on how she spots sockpuppets, using !! as an example. She didn't say she was about to block the account. She didn't ask for feedback about a block.
The next we heard about !! was after the block on November 18. If the November 3 discussion had been the only impetus for the block, it's unlikely Durova would have waited for another 15 days before doing it.
After Durova posted onwiki that she had received positive feedback about the block from five editors, I told her I hoped she wasn't referring to the list. She replied that there had been other private e-mails and chats.
I have no idea who these e-mails and chats were with, and I see no point in pursuing it, except to make trouble. Durova has resigned her adminship and lost the chance to stand for ArbCom -- a heavy price to pay for a mistake. As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point in conducting a witchhunt.
Sarah