wow! let's talk about my sandbox.

1

2

3

hmmm, so now we know how heirarchies work

4

how bout this

 sNkrSnee

Me

Talk

Projects
 Don't clik the pix!

CheckProof

Permitted evidence demonstrates Durova's ban of !! was only possible because she prejudged EVERY SINGLE element of her circumstantial investigation from the perspective of assumed guilt, where it was equally possible to assume good faith (links available).

She "circulated" "evidence" to "dozens" of "trusted" colleagues, right up to ArbCom [[1]], implicating them and rendering all prohibitions of relevant evidence manifestly COI. Recipients have not stepped forward. She refused inquiry and referred it to ArbCom [[2]], while running for ArbCom because it is woefully swamped [[3]], and with the assurance that there was absolutely no need. She failed to act on an offer to receive exhonerating evidence from a third party [[4]], until it was finally forced upon her by a colleague she appears to regard. [[5]]

She intially "apologized" only in the title of her retraction, claimed to be "the first to fix her own mistakes", alluded to the complicity of others, and invoked early closure and archiving of the discussion for the protection of the wronged party. None of this is likely to have occured if !! had been a less exemplary user, alongside the vast majority of contributors. Durova and her defenders now contend that she "corrected the mistake promptly, extended apologies, and shouldered full responsibility", [[6]],[[7]], none of which is accurate.

She has not engaged the relevant discussion at AN/I for several days, other than to ask that it not be discussed. She has refused to confirm that she is still open for recall [[8]], and does not seem to have a prominent link from her userpage detailing her requirements. Such a page does exist here [[9]]. Beneath her recall requirements, it features an object lesson entitled "How to disagree with me (and how not to)" [[10]]. Readers are highly recommended to explore the links in that section. The comment that got that person blocked (for a month) seems to be omitted, but is found here[[11]]. Only the dedicated will read enough to judge the soundness of her reasoning (it appears that both Wikipedia and the World Intellectual Property Organization now agree with her antagonist[[12]]). What is certain is that she provides these links as an example of how she intends to deal with trouble, and continues to ridicule that person - who remarkably seems to remain a contributor - on her Admin page. It also links to her essay "The Dark Side", where the first section is about "wikisleuthing".[[13]]

Some contend there has been only one mistake.

The end. sNkrSnee | t.p. 06:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]