Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Evidence

message: The time line paragraph currently states 'The block received mixed support, and Durova stood firm," - but the link given for that statement does not seem to support it. It does not look like the block received any support. Perhaps east718 should clarify either the statement or the supporting link. Isarig (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time line as given by east718

message: Can we assume that all members of the arbitration committee have seen this email at this point, or should it be forwarded to the arbcomm mailing list? Is there any chance we can get permission from whomever necessary (Durova, I assume?) to enter it into the evidence section of this proceeding in a more public fashion? JavaTenor (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The fact that other sites violate privacy and copyright is not a great reason for us to follow suit, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I did not suggest we follow other sites' example, I merely corrected something which appears to be inaccurate. That said, whether or not there is copyright infringement or privacy violation involved in the posting of Durova's E-mail is far from clear. Isarig (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *That was my assumption - thanks for confirming it, Mackensen.  I would like to request that Durova authorize the release of the email as evidence, in the interest of on-wiki transparency. JavaTenor (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence for whom? Arbcom are the judges and they have it. Nosiness is not yet policy.--Docg 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa whoa whoa--  remember us, the community?? --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Evidence for the community. The ArbCom are the judges, but this is not a hearing held in secret, using secret evidence. I think we've had quite enough of that in this case. Isarig (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  As above, evidence for the community, so it can fully understand what transpired in this case without having to rummage through talk page histories or do research on external sites.  Even though ArbComm makes the final decision, I feel that transparency of process is important whenever possible.  JavaTenor (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durova's initial "sleuthing" evidence regarding User:!! 

message: What reason did the checkuser's have for running two separate checks on the poor guy? Surely it wasn't because of the secret evidence, and if so, doesn't that call into serious question the judgement of these checkusers? 75.116.139.210 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On what basis were the two checkusers conducted on !!? 

message: *Addendum to my evidence: 
Please rest assured that Durova was not truthful about "Flonight" using checkuser information to block me, because according to the attached evidence, Flonight was not a checkuser until days after the said block was made. This makes Durova's claim a very bald illustration of a deceitful presentation to this community. 
Please see the attached link to evidence of Flonight becoming a checkuser days after the block of me.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&oldid=758421#Enwiki
Truly yours,  Songgarden  Back in the U.S. on Nov. 26, 2007  71.142.240.138 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durova and Flonight in a pact together? 

message: Would the five editors who Durova said supported her proposed block please identify and explain yourselves here?  Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Durova to let the five know that this section was created and waiting for their input, and emailed a request for the five to come here to both the secret CyberStalking and Investigations email lists.  So I believe that, whoever they are, they've been notified. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One idea might be to start throwing people in the lake - if they float it's generally not a good sign. (Seriously, whoever these alleged people are, they are highly embarrassed now and unlikely to do give the same careless advice again, so what is gained by forcing them to 'fess up?). Yours User:J McCarthy 09:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The community deserves to know the truth. Who knows, maybe they're still going around sleuthing more innocent editors? They need to have the guts to do the right thing and face whatever consequences. Being highly embarassed doesn't mean they should get away with this kind of poor judgment. If they reveal themselves, the community would scutinize their conducts more closely, which could prevent further administrative abuse.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we confess our sins....? OK, I'm Spartacus.--Docg 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so now Doc thinks I'm a troll just because I proposed a remedy against Mercury? This is great. It's classic.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that may be du to the fact of, I'm not disruptive.  I don't know. :) Mercury 10:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Sleuthing Five" speak

message: - Just a suggestion to everyone - this ship has sailed, the train has left the station, and the fat lady is three quarters of the way through her aria now. Continuing this discussion in this forum isn'
t likely to produce more answers. Risker (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship has sunk, the train has derailed and the fat lady has lost her voice - however, there is still lessons to be learned; on what rocks did the ship founder, how were the tracks mislaid, and what would have stopped Madam from catching a cold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're listening to bad opera on a broken speaker at this point.  There are better things to do.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we stop now please?

message: * Were the secret lists ever used for stealth canvassing? There are several polls that, in the light of day, now seem very suspicious.
:: No.
:::Not sure who's answering, as it's not signed or dated - I expect it's Durova. But, is it not true that the email, before going into stuff about !!, SPECIFICALLY make reference to the very same list it was posted to having been used to canvass for support statements of the block of Miltopia? —Random832 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Guy he said so on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence-- I refactored it into a threaded discussion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing