When seeking to understand someone's statement there are two general ways to go about it. The useful way is to contact the person either firsthand or through a mutually acceptable third party and ask them to explain it further. The unhelpful way is to go to a forum where that person is not present, construct straw man arguments, and broadcast one's objections to the straws.

I've signed onto this list temporarily for the purpose of response.

Jonas, your request for unbanning has met with universal rejection. Following up in this way is unlikely to hasten your return. The fact is, you created a breaching experiment--which you know is against policy--and you admitted in your description of the breaching experiment that there were additional circumstances some Wikipedians might recognize but that you didn't want to discuss.

Well circumstances happen to be that both the subject and the timing line up with a long term vandal, two arbitrations, two desysoppings, and the siteban of a former administrator. Of all the subjects on Wikipedia, you just happened to choose professional wrestling biography merely by chance and that had nothing to do at all with the fact it was also JB196's favorite subject? And pure coincidence prompted you to create the sock account that started a hoax wrestling biography the day before the arbitration committee finished voting to desysop Alkivar for helping JB's vandalism?

Of course I know you're not JB196. One of ways we caught him and sitebanned him two years ago was because he was evading an indef block on a sock account, using the sock account to cite himself, and claiming on the sock to be merely a fan--we caught that sock attributing a citation to his 'favorite author' even though the article itself had no byline. The original account was too old to checkuser, but on the strength of that connection we got a checkuser that uncovered his growing sockfarm. I know his name, but I don't broadcast it when it isn't necessary. I hope that fellow finally finishes his book manuscript and gets it published.

What's also interesting, though, is that Jonas knows JB196's real name even though the long term abuse page doesn't list it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196

And of course Jonas is shooting totally straight with us. That's all just a massive coincidence. He's been mistreated and I'm nuts.

-Durova

P.S. Reply by email or other means; I'm signing off the list again. Life is too short for this.

I recently sent an unblock request to Tiptoety, asking him to post it on the Admins' Noticeboard, as he said he would on IRC. Durova made a comment on it, and then she wrote a long-winded addendum to it that I really didn't get the point of, and am unsure of how to respond to. It seems to me that she wasn't accusing me of anything, as I could make out no clear accusation, but why did she write all of that? For nothing? I don't think that she was accusing me of being JB196, because if she read the long term abuse page on him, she would see that his real name is [redacted], and that he is a wrestling commentator who promotes himself. Then again, she's accused me of not being as young as I say I am, and she may think that I am a made-up person. A Yahoo! search on my name can disprove this. Any connection between me and JB196 is purely coincidental. I have never even communicated with Alkivar and Eyrian (who have been accused of editing for JB196), let alone JB196, and I surely didn't "proxy" for him.

I don't know what to say in response to her speech, except that I cannot understand a word of it.