Ok sorry for delay - putting kids to bed and all - seems we need to clarify a few more things:
First to the charge that MNHQ are Moldies! viz:
"And it is wierd that this kind of PR mishap keeps happening when there seems to be some kind of white fungal element to things. I don't know if it's accidental - MNHQ are embarrassed and so keep being cack-handed - or whether they are actually on Mouldies. But it is starting to really piss me off."
Well many moldies were/are in many cases Mumsnetters too - it is true we're trying to be fair all MN members - not just MNetters who aren't Moldies. I can't tell you how hard it is, actually. How often we've sat on our hands when our instinct has been during the whole sorry, painful, time-consuming mess of Moldiegate to turn round and say - as many on MN have - well sod off then, to the Moldie crowd. But that would be hypocritical and therefore low of us. We can't on the one hand, say we are fine with folks leaving/ creating a new board and on the other bear ill-will for them so doing - even if it has caused a lot of pain.
We've ended up pretty much peeing everyone off I guess. All I can say is we try to be fair and to treat each complaint on it's merits and without regard to who (whom?) the complaint is about. (Unless it's Hughjarss) You might think we've made a "PR" hash of it, but we're not trying for PR here, we are trying to be fair.
Bear in mind also that we do "know" most of those who appear to be Moldies in the sense that they've posted on MN for some time and we know they're well-meaning folk, not meanies, as a rule. So if you extrapolate from that, those who raised concerns with us (and some did in a proper way off board) had real concerns about the Justa, and weren't just being vindictive, so of course (though we strongly suspected they were mistaken and told them so at the time) we had a duty to check out their suspicion - we do say in our troll policy that if you report your suspicions we'll take them seriously. You would all, I suspect, expect us to do the same if you had a genuine concern that someone was misleading others on the boards. But we deleted the posts that suggested Revjusta was not who she said she was, first.
We did not really doubt Revjusta but we've been doing this long enough to know that the strangest things can happen on the internet, so er checked a few basic things about her from readily available sources and those she herself had volunteered, so we could say with certainty that these accusations against her were unfounded.
With regard to Revjusta losing the Rev from her name I reiterate our position here:
Having some posters acting in a professional capacity doesn't sit particularly well with our philosophy. Revjusta had talked about Mumsnet as her ministry - she undoubtedly gives great support and advice and we very much trust she will continue to do so - but we don't want it to seem like we at HQ have appointed her as chief spiritual adviser or anything like that. After all, we're not Bishops and frankly have no authority whatsoever in spiritual matters! It's a bit like the disclaimers that we have at the top of some of the boards (the ones that say something like we are not experts in this matter and have no way of verifying that the info you get on MN is correct so this is no substitute for seeking professional advice type of thing) - the fact that Revjusta has a Rev sort of means she needs a disclaimer too (and that would have meant a v long nickname).
So we mooted a name change as part of a wider conversation about her welfare during this whole affair - and she agreed it was a good plan. (She has incidentally apologised to us for her thread title and post, which somewhat implies that we de-frocked her whilst she was kicking and screaming! But understandably, as I've said, she was reeling a bit from being doubted by folk.)
We also specifically discussed waiting a few weeks before she name-changed, so it didn't seem like it was in response to the questioning of her validity - which of course was not something we wanted folk to think.
Yes it was unfortunate timing because understandably it looks like the unfounded attacks have had some consequence. Sadly that was out of our hands.
As to the banning issue, we don't think anyone deserves to be banned over this. People are forever wrongly suspecting others of being trolls (and sometimes rightly suspecting them). What this has done is serve to remind folks, we hope, why we discourage this kind of public outing of people - put it simply you might be wrong - in which case it's unpleasant and unkind. We reiterate our troll policy and urge you to contact MN with any concerns (as we say we promise to take any concerns seriously). We will continue to delete any posts and threads "outing" others as and when they are reported/ we see them.
What we would say though, is this: It is very clear is that the sudden appearance of a group of known Moldie Members on a MN thread, particularly if they've not been around much and have a common strong opinion will always be liable to make folks suspicious that it's at best something that's been pre-discussed on Moldiesand at worst an orchestrated attack. This is a natural consequence of some Mumsnetters being known to use another closed board and something that folk should bear in mind if they are keen to avoid ill-feeling/ further upset.
MNHQ