Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
The only thing I'm concerned about is all the dead links here on the SE Network that will be pointing to Yahoo Answers pages that no longer exist. Not that there was too much useful information there, so I'm not that concerned.
I'm going to assume this is a win for you, and that you agreed to some sort of Non Disclosure Agreement because you found the outcome acceptable, so Congratulations!
Far too many people have spoken for Monica already without her getting any reasonable avenue to respond (Even with hundreds of people here who know there's no public evidence, news outlets have made her look like a bigot in ways that are causing actual harm to her, and no meta post or blog can combat that) . The next thing said out of this must come from her, no one else. (Unless of course SE wants to say "Sorry, we seriously screwed up, Monica did absolutely nothing wrong" and start making some actual amends.)
No, they literally are not welcome to do that. The moderators are not to "leak transcripts" as you put it. The corporation has to communicate it directly to Monica in private, and give her the option of publicizing the results, and when she does, publicly state that her account is correct. If someone, even with good intentions, tried to post whatever "convincing evidence" they have, that would only serve to drag Monica's name further through the mud, and for no reason.
This answer is not accurate. There is at least one moderator who says they have seen the not public evidence and agree with Monica's removal, even though none have said they agree with how she was removed. Example: "I support that Monica was removed -- I understand the reasons behind it and with the evidence I saw it made sense" -- George Stocker. I personally don't think that if I saw the evidence I would agree though, I highly doubt Monica did anything wrong.
I am sorry for what you and anyone else who feels the new CoC better represents them are feeling when they see the community's aversion to it. I understand that it looks bad and your interpretation that the hundreds of downvoters wish you didn't exist is reasonable. However, I don't believe it's helpful to jump directly from the way it makes you feel to calling those voters hostile: I downvoted the FAQ because I think the CoC FAQ as written excludes more people than it includes, and I upvoted A Pronominal Proposal because it fixes that.
I've upvoted this since I know the company has decided not to pursue it any further than the assurances by IAS, and you've given a very good report as to what's been investigated and why they stopped where they did. However, I don't want that to be misconstrued as me accepting the IAS's assurances at face value nor that I believe doing these checks is an appropriate way of detecting bots or fraud. This post has given me the information I needed to be sure I will not put Stack Exchange as an exception in my ad blocker, so for that reason it was useful, even if I'm not happy with the content.
