On Nov 27, 2007 12:02 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 10:16 PM, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding a reasonable reaction to the sockpuppeting claim, as Matthew
points out "She was completely right, as far as I know, that !! was a
returned user grooming an account for adminship. She was wrong in
making the unsupported leap beyond that - that this meant it was a
banned user
grooming an account for adminship - and discounting all other
possibilities."
Yes, of course. That's really what everyone said after the block, on the
noticeboards even when the evidence was not known. The question is why
nobody said that who actually saw the evidence. The expectation of some of
us is because nobody thought it was that big a deal. This is not
representative of the project in general. Again, an echo chamber.
RR
I think I'm mostly going to quote Matthew from now one, because he's
pretty much already said it all, in this very thread:
"Unfortunately Durova did not run this block past either list. She
posted an email laying out why !! appeared to be a returned user to
the cyberstalking list,
which I did not read until after she did the block (the list has been
quite high volume) but did not to the best of my knowledge give anyone
any indication that she was going to block."
It appears that Durova said "This is a returning user", and the small
number who actually read the e-mail thought "yeah, you're probably
right". Why would anything more be required?