Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editing as SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as well as via an IP 74.73.16.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which he admitted was his IP: [1]. He also has used 69.201.147.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [2], [3]
the IP 74.73.16.230 resolves to Brooklyn, NYC...where banned editor NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has edited from... (NuclearUmpf was editor Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and changed his username and redirected it to NuclearUmpf after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults)
NuclearUmpf claims grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn NYC and still lives there… [4], [5], [6]
It was pretty obvious that Diamonds was not a newbie editor...his third edit showed he know about cite templates...[7]...but he left out the <ref></ref>at the beginning and end, but fixed it one minute later [8]...his very first edit was to an Afd...[9]. Even earlier edits using the IP listed above, he knew what he was doing then...[10].
His second edit to the Afd he responded to being tagged as a SPA... I am not a "single purpose account" [11]
Nuclear clearly stated he intended to continue harassing people leading to his indef ban: [12]
And that he doesn’t seem to care about creating a new account, so it must be easy I suppose Go fuck yourself rofl, just ban the username so I can edit under anon, silly arbcom noobs. and as he stated he has a million proxies he can use instead
and that he is now editing with a different username..."I already started editing under my new account", 18:54, February 20, 2007, "I do not edit under this name anymore. I had to create a new username etc" 08:20, February 21, 2007 and further discussions here
Nuclear had repeated disagreements with a number of editors and mentioned them by name on a few occasions...
The following admins are invovled in this ongoing dispute and should not respond to this request because of COI. Aude, JzG, MONGO, Tom Harrison, Tom, Aude, MONGO, JzG, MONGO, JZG, Tom Harrison, Authur Rubin, Tbeatty, Morton (devonshire)...so who does Six/SevenOfDiamonds have disagreements with...same editors...at least the ones still active..."MONGO - TBeatty - Morton - Pablo - Ultramarine" 09:04, July 14, 2007
With MONGO 08:04, June 28, 2007, 08:08, June 28, 2007, 08:14, June 28, 2007, 08:49, July 2, 2007 bogus vandalism report...etc.
With Tom harrison 08:17, June 28, 2007
With Tbeatty 11:21, July 5, 2007
With Aude 08:35, July 15, 2007, 13:53, July 18, 2007
There are plenty more...do I have to post every single incident? I'm sure if these editors are asked, they can substantiate their own personal experiences.
Note...will post more later...me thinks this is a unecessary since all we have to deal with is the ban evasion issue.--MONGO 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
SevenOfDiamonds and baiting:
See attached time of time of day edit chart. Diamonds and Nuclear both edit at the same time of day, but of course Nuclear had a lot more edits total than Diamonds has so far…but they coincide with an east coast U.S. time of day Both SevenOfDiamonds and Nuclear have a tendency on weekdays to edit starting at 6 or 7 am east coast U.S. time then a break for an hour or two, resuming at 8 or 9 am, editing throughout the day, another break in the evening and either stopping at that point or adding a few more edits up until 11 pm. Aside from an odd overnight edit or two now and then, this pattern is repeated on a regular basis.
Links to contributions:
He set up his userpage in an almost identical fashion as SevenOfDiamonds and as Zer0Faults:
Diamonds
Zer0Faults
Nuclear had heavy involvement in the state terrorism article as well as 9/11 conspiracy theories…Diamonds is also heavily enagaged in the state terrorism article and has edited 9/11 related pages. ZeroFaults altered his username and redirected his page to a new username NuclearUmpf, right after arbcom issued some remedies be imposed on him at RFAr Zer0Faults
RFAr Zer0faults and redirected userpage from Zer0faults to NuclearUmpf
Not long after SixOfDiamonds was blocked for 3RR he altered and redirected his Six account to his new Seven one, claiming he had lost his password...which might be true...[15]
Has a history of following people around to the point where they have to ask him to stop
Diamonds 04:54, 15 July 2007, 20:24, 17 July 2007, 22:41, 17 July 2007, 16:42, 18 July 2007
Nuclear 17:45, 9 February 2007, Discussion, 18:52, 9 January 2007, 04:49, 9 September 2006
Wikistalking:
…I voted delete earlier that day
comments to me about my delete vote above
aside from his comment, which I did not respond to, he and I had no other involvement yet he shows up at 7 World Trade Center (an article he had not previously edited with either his Diamonds or IP accounts) after I had removed misleading information here
and he re added it back (editing as SixOfDiamonds and with his IP) during an edit war with 5 other editors who had reverted him
15:23, June 27, 2007 17:49, June 27, 2007 19:57, June 27, 2007 04:38, June 28, 2007 05:25, June 28, 2007 07:57, June 28, 2007 08:06, June 28, 2007 and was blocked for 3RR 12:19, June 28, 2007
Both have a history of removing comments left on their talk pages by myself and Tom Harrison
Diamonds 05:36, 15 July 2007, 20:28, 17 July 2007, 13:05, 28 June 2007, 13:17, 28 June 2007, 20:06, 2 July 2007
Nuclear 20:54, 15 February 2007, 20:17, 16 February 2007
Nuclear and the IP 74.73.16.230 (admitted as SevenOfDiamonds [18]) both edited a rather obscure template...Template:911ct I thought this connection was interesting as Diamonds admits this is his IP...and oddly enough, this template was also editied heavily by Nuclear. Edits done by the IP were the very first he did and just as Nuclear, he was adding more people to the template to try and make it look like conspiracy theories had a bigger following than they did…
Nuclear’s edits were numerous:
The IP added two “rappers” to the template and Nuclear edited and created a few rapper articles...odd since almost all his edits are to conspiracy theories and politics, especially Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles...20:48, 22 September 2006, 21:01, 22 September 2006, Fab Five Freddy editing history, On The Grind editing history
One of the groups added to the template by the IP used by Diamonds was Immortal Technique 17:38, April 13, 2007 and NuclearUmpf (as Zer0faults) made edits to the same article 00:56, 6 June 2006, 14:12, 5 June 2006
Links immediately below in this discussion are slow to load....
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States has been a favorite article for Nuclear and Diamonds (Nuclear made 300 edits to the talkpage and article[19]and another 254 to the article talkpage when he edited as Zer0faults[20]...and SevenOfDiamonds has 164 edits total[21] and another 190 when he edited as SixOfDiamonds[22])...he seems to have knowledge of Latin American issues regarding this subject:[23]
Here, Nuclear re adds a section on Guatemala 11:28, 19 December 2006
As Zer0faults, created a sympathic page about Hugo Chavez in his userspace at User:Zer0faults/Info
Supports the section regarding Cuban claims of state terrorism 23:17, 16 December 2006
An examination of Diamond’s userpage shows his article creation is centered on Latin American issues SevenOfDiamonds userpage
Nuclear and Diamonds often use X and Y or XYZ in their discussions
Has a tendency to end comments with the sentence, "Thank you:"
Common contexts in which this occurs include: 1) challenging someone to provide an argument or a source 2) challenging someone to read something.
Both Nuclear and Seven remove talkpage comments with edit summaries of “go play somewhere” seemed odd to use the word “somewhere” and not add "else":
Diamonds 05:36, 15 July 2007
IP 74.73.16.230 03:06, 2 July 2007
Nuclear 19:05, 2 February 2007
In the first and third examples, this is juxtaposed with "children/childish".
Both use the term "Chest beating"
Diamonds 21:02, 5 July 2007, 20:36, 17 July 2007, 20:40, 17 July 2007, 16:52, 18 July 2007, 17:09, 18 July 2007, 20:00, 5 July 2007, 19:37, 5 July 2007
Nuclear 16:29, 19 November 2006, 16:47, 19 November 2006
While these are not rare, the fact is they show a commonality in style between Diamonds and Nuclear...this is but a sampling
These diffs were drawn from only a superficial sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.
Both SOD and ZF/NU consistently misspell "consensus" as "concensus":
These diffs were drawn from only a superficial sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.
Both constantly cite policy and page shortcuts without wikilinking them...ie : WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Doesn’t even write just simply OR or NPOV...this is but a small sampling...he does occasionally wikilink policies, but rarely compared to when he doesn't.
IP 74.73.16.230 20:33, July 12, 2007, 10:09, July 8, 2007, 10:46, July 4, 2007, 10:18, July 4, 2007
Diamonds 16:10, July 22, 2007, 18:51, August 8, 2007, 11:52, July 30, 2007, 08:23, June 28, 2007, 15:28, June 27, 2007
Nuclear 16:47, February 16, 2007, 08:37, February 16, 2007, 08:25, February 16, 2007, 11:17, February 14, 2007, 06:18, February 15, 2007, 08:57, January 18, 2007, 13:44, December 18, 2006, 09:56, December 13, 2006,18:15, December 12, 2006
All accounts have a commonality in using the words “response” and to a lesser degree “note” as well as a single number, most commonly the number “1” or “+1” in edit summaries…Seven has used these short edit summaries with these few words/numbers more 300 times in his edit summaries. Nuclear has done so at the same ratio. Edit summaries are most often just single words. Check links below to see total or most recent edit summaries by Seven/Six/IP and Nuclear.
SevenOfDiamonds
SixOfDiamonds
IP 74.73.16.230
NuclearUmpf (last 500)
SOD and ZF/NU's edit summaries show many very obvious resemblances. One is the frequency of summaries beginning with, or consisting only of, "huh?":
Diamonds 18:06, 28 July 200718:14, 28 July 200718:21, 28 July 200710:38, 29 July 200714:30, 29 July 2007
Nuclear 12:58, 14 January 200712:35, 14 January 200715:49, 22 January 200721:20, 29 January 200706:25, 2 February 200711:15, 8 February 2007
As with the preceding sections, these were drawn from an incomplete sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.
Another frequent summary is "lol":
Diamonds 21:23, 23 July 200713:21, 29 July 200713:28, 29 July 200717:02, 30 July 2007
Nuclear 21:45, 30 January 200719:45, 31 January 2007 14:43, 2 February 200721:35, 2 February 200711:53, 8 February 200711:57, 8 February 200717:46, 8 February 200718:35, 13 February 2007 Like the above, these were drawn from an incomplete sample.
Diamonds 13:36, 14 August 2007, 14:50, 11 July 2007
Nuclear 06:58, 21 February 2007, 19:54, 20 February 2007, 16:54, 15 February 2007, 11:59, 15 February 2007, 07:06, 15 February 2007, 14:38, 13 February 2007, 15:15, 9 February 2007, 13:57, 9 February 2007, 13:56, 9 February 2007, 16:29, 8 February 2007, 15:24, 7 February 2007, 12:42, 2 February 2007, 14:40, 31 January 2007, 07:29, 31 January 2007, 15:01, 30 January 2007, 14:56, 30 January 2007, 14:37, 30 January 2007, 13:50, 30 January 2007, 14:21, 27 January 2007
Corrects spelling errors with the summary, "typo(s)":
Diamonds 15:46, 26 June 200713:08, 13 July 200713:57, 16 July 200716:08, 16 July 200720:40, 17 July 200718:31, 18 July 200718:46, 18 July 200723:39, 18 July 200716:20, 19 July 200716:19, 19 July 200717:25, 21 July 200717:28, 21 July 200719:08, 21 July 2007 03:10, 22 July 200714:33, 22 July 200716:27, 30 July 2007
Nuclear 20:24, 16 February 200711:50, 17 February 200710:58, 21 February 200711:06, 21 February 2007
The full text of this evidence may be found at User:SevenOfDiamonds/IPFallacy.
The full text of this evidence may be found at User:SevenOfDiamonds/Arbcom.
I was waiting for MONGO to bring this up since it only makes him look bad. Let examine the edits prior to the ones he points out:
Even MONGO's own supporters believe the evidence is faulty, here is Aude telling MONGO how common the edit summary "typo" is.[35][36] 3rd party people have come forward to show MONGO how common the issues are such as SOPHIA, however showing 1/5th of the wiki-population was not enough to convince MONGO.[37] MONGO himself admitting the link he attempts to draw regarding children/childish is common.[38] This is pretty obvious to even those supporting MONGO, and MONGO himself, that his evidence is flawed. Oddly MONGO choose to present evidence he himself felt was too common. Probably to give as much padding as needed. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out if the below "evidence" by MONGO is proof showing tell-tale signs, why are not many shared between zer0 and Nuclear? I cannot be alleged to be Nuclear and yet not zer0. Quirks and misspellings would carry over to all accounts. More proof of confirmation bias I guess.
I never admitted to making that edit. I stated specifically that those edit did not make sense to match me since the time frame of not editing is over 1 month. Further, the edits are not even disruptive, or at least do not appear to be without context. Perhaps TBeatty can explain why they are disruptive or provide some counter to my evidence regarding IP's. There is currently a discussion on AN/I stating how inconclusive IP's are for determining sockpuppets. Was Lovelight banned for these edits? Or is this more of the everything and the sink accusation where I am not once again being accused of being Lovelight?
I requested a checkuser for User:SevenOfDiamonds[39]. I believed he may have been the banned editor User:Lovelight. The evidence I outlined is somewhat compelling as the nature of the IP edits matches Lovelights.
User:Lovelight is a banned user. Here the unlogged in Lovelight meatpuppet makes an edit using the 74.73.16.230 IP address. The rest of Lovelight's edits on April 13 are available here. Specifically, this sequence is telling [40][41][42][43][44]. Later this IP edits as SixOfDiamonds and admits it. SixOfDiamonds became SevenOfDiamonds See redirected page. SevenOfDiamonds edits with 69.201.147.240. Both the IPs are from the same location and from the same RoadRunner IP provider.
Whether SoD is a sockpuppet of a banned editor or a meatpuppet is irrelevant. He proxies the same POV mentality, the same disruptive style and the same result of constant conflict.
This all started when Amarkov filed an AN/I over SoD's disruption and his conflict with MONGO. Specifically, This Edit where he identifies himself and calls MONGO a troll. The An/I asked that a checkuser be filed, so I did based on Lovelight's edits and their similarity to an IP that belonged to SoD. --DHeyward 05:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Which edits are you denying are yours? I am confused. Please provide a diff. --DHeyward 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.