Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence

message: Yuber sent an e-mail to Guy Montag clearly indicating his intention to violate the arbcom injunction.   I'm not sure about the etiquette of posting a private e-mail to this page, or of forwarding it to the arbitrators. Could one of the arbitrators advise, please? The reason the e-mail is significant in relation to Guy is that it shows the context within which much of Guy's reverting took place. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred advised me to forward the e-mail to arbitration committee members, so I've done that. There's also this evidence from Yuber, posted to Talk:Jihad on Jun 18, just before the tempban:
 "Yuber" might be restrained from editing, but I certainly won't ;).Yuber(talk) 03:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved comments to Wikipedia talk: Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright, so an arrogant quote from me said to an aggressive editor before I knew anything about injunctions or tempbans is significant how?  Shortly after the injunction was placed I tried to edit and was immediately blocked.  So far the only proof you have provided of me violating my injunction is several unrelated IP addresses that have nothing in common except for disagreeing with pro-Zionist editors.  If that is all it takes to be me, then you might as well ban 20 people.  I have seen no detailed analysis linking me to these IP addresses as is usual in a case like this.  But if the arbcom feels that just saying they are me is sufficient, then go right ahead and add all the IP addresses you want, we'll see how many locations we can attribute to me.  So far you have me editing from England and Illinois : ).Yuber(talk) 00:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, I'm currently going through the contributions to see what can be linked to you. I notice that one of them was used to violate 3RR by reverting to Yuber's version of an article, for example. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it seems you don't have to prove that any of these addresses are in fact me, can you at least give an example of them being used in relation to Guy Montag and him reverting their edits?  If all you're trying to prove is that I reverted articles, there's already enough proof of this.  But you did start this by claiming that it was these IP addresses which forced Guy Montag to revert, a really strange claim you still need to prove.  In addition, many of those proxies are as you said "open" and so they have been used by several people to edit wikipedia.Yuber(talk) 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you're saying these open proxies don't show any link to Guy anyway, and that even if you had used them, it wouldn't show bad faith, perhaps you can show some good faith now and save me a lot of work by telling us: did you use these IP addresses to edit Wikipedia after your temp ban? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey look, I found another account that someone claimed to be me.   User:Cragmont.  Why don't we just add this to the list of my accounts since it is so obviously me, after all, Guy Montag said it was me so it must be true, and the first edit of this user is on another user's talkpage referring to my injunction.  Even though this could be any of the two other banned editors that have a similar viewpoint to me, why don't we just assume it's me and add it to the list of sockpuppets.  I'll do it myself. Yuber(talk) 00:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from evidence page