QUOTE

wish you'd extend a little benefit of the doubt there. Dispute resolution progressed in a way that denied me fair opportunity to respond to criticisms. And bear in mind, please, that the bulk of my volunteer work had been spent resolving problems like this so they didn't degenerate to the point of lawsuits or news stories. We really need more people to help in that area. DurovaCharge! 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been hashed and re-hashed. I have never, and will never, have any use for secret evidence-gathering. That said, I truly believe that you were acting in what you felt were the best interests of the project. I just don't agree with your methods, nor do I believe they actually were in the best interests of the project. But I do not doubt your motivations were of pure intent. I don't think you were trying to harm the project at all. And my last note was simply to let you know that as far as I'm concerned, bygones are bygones. I think you're a good editor, and your work in the mainspace is a credit to the project. Mr Which??? 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what would you say about this? I was totally upfront about that in a situation where most people wouldn't have been candid, and the upshot has been that an attack site presents a distorted version of events that denies the graphic harassment and paints me as if I had been vindictive and illogical. The counterpart to demanding full onsite disclosures of everything is that you need to draw a very hard line against attempts to revictimize people who have already been harassed. If you can find a practical way to accomplish that, more power to you. DurovaCharge! 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)