This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

1) Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs to stop leaving inflammatory warnings on MONGO's talk page. After a rather heated discussion in the proposed decision page, [1][2][3], Viridae decided to arbitrarily warn Mongo on his talk page [4] for an edit summary he used [5] to dismiss an editor that wished cancer upon him [6]. Please officially ask Viridae not escalate the situation by injecting himself into even more disputes. His warning was inappropriate and unncessary and inflammatory. An apology and no further threats of administrative action is in order. --DHeyward 05:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seriously...I am getting rather tired of Viridae asking me to "be civil" and "AGF" yet get none returned to me by him.--MONGO 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should stop telling people to "fuck off" if you do not like being reminded that WP:CIVIL is not optional. While you are at it, perhaps not calling people "sockpuppets" on every page they post, including this Arbcom, calling them "trolls" and whatever other harmful language you think up that day. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see...the troll who told me they think I deserve cancer is forgotten of course. The only person under investigation here for sockpuppetry is you, and you are the only person I have accused of sockpuppetry here...get you facts straight. What about my character...how many times have you and admins that have shown up here with an axe to grind has my character been impunged?--MONGO 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'the troll who told me they think I deserve cancer is forgotten of course' - perfect example of Two wrongs make a right 89.149.230.28 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, nor do I have an axe to grind, you keep pursuing me. As if you have an axe to grind. You have terms for everyone who disagree's with you, a master of character assassination. People with a certain PoV get checked for being sockpuppets, Viridae has an ace to grind, anyone who does not agree with you is one or the other. Of course you do not make the accusation, do not say it outright, just vague, just propose things to people for them to carry out. And here we are, another attempt at character assassination, oddly against someone who does not agree with you, from someone who I had no interaction with that filed RFCU's against me. Where is that razor Chaz was going on about? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep pursuing you, eh...my evidence clearly shows that you were wikistalking me, not vice versa. I proposed that checkuser be filed on one occassion...and only once. So odd, NucearUmpf interestingly said the same things, as if I had some power over other editors...what a coincidence.--MONGO 07:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what that sounded like? I do not recall saying such a thing. Much like you never had me checkuser'd or called someone a sockpuppet on the talk page. I think you are reading too much into things. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I responded to this on the DHeyward's talk page [7]. Warning someone to behave more civilly when they have just told someone to "fuck off" in an edit summary is neither unnecessary nor inappropriate, and is only inflammatory if the person who made the insult continues to to behave in an insulting manner (which was not the case). Viridae^Talk 06:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing someones talk page or edits for transgressions after a dispute on a different matter doesn't pass the smell test. --DHeyward 06:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on your tal page, MONGOs talk page is one of about 200 or so userpages I have watchlisted. I rarely clear my watchlist, so it is ever growing. It s not fishing to have an edit presented to you at the top of a watchlist, which is exactly what happened. Had there been an intervening edit, I would never have seen it. Viridae^Talk 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is laughable that Viridae's comment is being called "inappropriate and unncessary and inflammatory." Telling a user to "fuck off" is the exact behavior that needs to be curtailed, and Viridae's comment was very appropriate. This is pathetic... - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, character assassination at its finest. [8] Not an RFCU, but in the right direction. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant to the SevenOfDiamonds arbitration case. The civility warning (which was completely justified, by the way) had nothing to do with this case. Melsaran (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion here [9][10][11] followed by a warning on a completely unrelated matter is not appropriate. Admins should not be engaged in a dispute with a user at arbcom and then appear to follow them to their talk page looking for a violation on user talk page edit summaries. It reeks of intimidation. --DHeyward 05:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...do I need to point out again that I have had the user page on my watch list for ages...? Viridae^Talk 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it's completely irrelevant. You've already stated that it would be inappropriate for you to block him. The reason is that the motivation for blocking would be suspect, regardless of the infraction and regardless of how many pages you have on your watchlist. Similarly, the motivation for the warning is suspect. Seeing your argument with him followed by your warning for his talk page edit summary doesn't pass the smell test. It was very poor judgement to think you could engage in an argument at arbcom and then constructively leave a civility warning on his talk page over a completely unrelated matter that you were not even involved in. You threw gasoline on a fire and your reasoning is that you've been watching the fire for ages. --DHeyward 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely...Viridae is digging for gold in a coal mine...his ongoing accusations of me being incivil and or my need to be civil even when faced with what is a tantamount to a death threat, or a wish I was dead via cancer is pretty incivil in itself. If admins and admin hopefuls here have nothing better to do but look for reasons to antagonize long standing contributors who respond in a very human-like manner to disgusting harassment, then this project is doomed.--MONGO 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO I said quite clearly that the first edit I saw in that dispute was you removing his post about the WTC conspiracy theory with the edit summary "fuck off". At no point does our civility policy allow either comment - yours or theirs, as you know very well. I don't care how long standing your contributions are, civility is not negotiable. You had and have no excuse whatsoever. Viridae^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, I find every single encounter I have had with you to be abusive on your part. Your ongoing baiting and efforts to pick a fight with me have not gone unnoticed. You continue to lecture about my incivility, yet I find you to be one of the least civil editors on this website. Frankly, when I see someone leave a comment on another person's talkpage where they have been threatened as I was and they respond as I did, I recognize it for what it is, not some excuse to bait and goad someone I have had a dispute with and essentially reinforce the attack.--MONGO 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to find everyone who does not agree with you, to be engaging in abuse of you. There is a syndrome for that type of behaviour. I have felt you have been harassing me, calling me a sockpuppet everywhere I post, are you then saying my responses to you that you highlited as "my violations of civility" were justified. You seem to advocate that its ok to be uncivil if someone was uncivil to you first. Do you stand by this, or are you being a hypocrite? --SevenOfDiamonds 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to notice that the argument was last touched several days before the completely justified (see above) warning for civility...? Any editor can warn another for civility, you seem to be imply that a civility warning is an admin action...? There is a vast difference between a warning (which editor can and should give) and a block (which I probobly would have held off giving unless it was patently and clearly warranted - instead contacting another admin to enact it. Viridae^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they were on the same day. [12][13]. Also your civlitiy warning to this user belies the underlying authority you threaten to use. [14] --DHeyward 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because that user had run out of non-authoritive civility warnings, by restoring the offending attack on another editor twice, despite knowing why it was removed. THey had been warned multiple times that that was not acceptable but continued to do be disruptive. Frankly your arguments are tired and pointless. You make unfounded accusations (which I have debunked several times) that I was following MONGO around, when I have provided a more likely explanation and now you drag a completely unrelated dispute into the equation, ignoring the more minor parts of the dipute, and choosing to go for the apex of the dispute to back up your claims. You have also been told that this is 1. unrelated to this case and 2. unjustified because the original warning was correct by two different people. Give it up. Viridae^Talk 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unrelated. It's the beginning of a pattern of admin abuse that "has not gone unnoticed". Badgering editors over trivialities while holding the ban hammer is not acceptable behavior. --DHeyward 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised on an Arbcom hearing you would call civility a triviality. You have been participating in my Arbcom and you do not even know the rules of Wikipedia, quite amusing. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is absolutely not a triviality, It is one of the 5 core policies of wikipedia. It was also not badgering, because a single justified civility warning is not badgering. Stop blowing things way out of proportion. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and you are mistaken - they may be within the same period of 24 hours (about 18 hours apart) but they were NOT on the same day. Viridae^Talk 07:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim several days. The edit summary says 18 hours (and are the same day on my page). How dud you stretch 18 hours into several days? --DHeyward 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply because I was not aware they were so close to each other, because I was not following MONGO around... Viridae^Talk 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you agree that to everyone but you, it looks like you followed him from a dispute at ArbCom to his talk page? --DHeyward 08:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because my explanation of having his user page on watch list is the most likely one. See Occam's razor. Viridae^Talk 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occams Razor only applies when it suits MONGO, when the explanation involves me hacking out of state pentagon terminals or, putting on my robe and walking across rivers, then we are left with MONGO's Razor. I believe it says: If MONGO believes it to be true, no matter how improbable, then it must be. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please ask DHeyward to take their vendetta and character assassination to the appropriate forum. Thanks. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can arbcom please ban SevenOfDiamonds for his ban evasion? I think this charade has gone on long enough.--MONGO 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always avoid the topic? By repeating yourself over and over, it will not make it true. Your logic above proves that. I am Nuclear because I think its odd Dheyward does everything on your behalf, and Nuclear thought so as well, or so you maintain. So by that logic, anyone who thinks its odd, is also Nuclear. Your either with us or against us. I am waiting for you to invoke a "for the terrorists line." --SevenOfDiamonds 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...this passive aggressive nonsense with you is over....just admit that you are evading your ban and stop lying about it. Have some honor, have some sense of respect for yourself and stop wasting our time. You can always create a new username...you've done that a number of times now haven't you, NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults.--MONGO 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, this time you said it, it magically became true. That was sarcasm before someone runs back to AN/I and has a few admins tell them how foolish they are acting. This is not the Wizard of Oz, your proof has to prove something, saying it 3 times does not make it happen. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, this is not productive in any sense. I suggest everyone steps back and allows ArbCom to do what it wishes. This thread does nothing for either of your cases. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I am tired of being trolled by this ban evading sockpuppet. The best way to end the charade is to end the case...I already stated that here is the only place I will ever again deliberately deal with this guy. Even if he is banned, after he returns under a new username, someone else will eventually have to deal with him and his goading, baiting and other nonsense...it is what he has done for a couple of years now.--MONGO 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your being trolled ... on the Arbcom that involves me ... your logic is outstanding. You make accusations that people are grinding axes and when asked to prove it, you just stop responding. You elude that others that oppose you are sockpuppets, oddly in my own evidence I showed this is not the first time, nor the second apparently. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the way to end this is for the arbitrators to review the evidence and decide if he is a sock or not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The arbs need to decide whether there's enough evidence or not. One way or another, this case needs to be closed. Chaz ^Beckett 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question to MONGO from KWSN[edit]

I'm very curious here, and I'm sure several others are as well. You suggested 5 times that SoD was a sock of 5 different users, one of which was not even blocked. 4 of those 5 times, it was shown he was not a sock (and that last time has yet to be decided). Now here's my question: why did you keep on pursuing him (meaning, why did you keep on suggesting he was a sock)? Kwsn(Ni!) 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a rather misleading summary. Checkuser does not show whether a given user is a sockpuppet, it simply displays the IPs for a registered user for a short period of time (few weeks I believe). It was impossible to run Checkuser in comparison to NuclearUmpf since the IP data was no longer available. MONGO didn't request any of the Checkusers and the fact that SOD is unrelated to several other users (Giovanni33, Lovelight, etc..) seems mostly irrelevant. Chaz ^Beckett 16:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that MONGO suggested the people for the checkusers to be run against, no he did not actually post the message. This has been admitted by MONGO below, he feels however this was a small portion of participation in the RFCU's. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwsn, if you bothered to look at the evidence, this fellow has been wikistalking me for awhile now. My involvement in the checkusers requests was next to zero, minor, extremely limited...whatever you want to call it. It seems odd that so many checkuser requests would be made and so many would be involved in it if so many weren't convinced we were dealing with a possible ban evader. His very first edits using his IP and his SixOfDiamonds account made it clear he was not a new editor...he had an understanding of being able to properly added cited refson his third edit, went straight to an Afd as SixOfDiamonds to voteon his first edit and had a through understanding of wiki style. His familiarity with the same articles as NuclearUmpf was uncanny.--MONGO 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that SoD has claimed repeatedly (I don't have a diff handy) that he edited anonymously for several months before registering his account. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it is a possible alternative explanation for why he was familiar with wiki-style and why he participated in an AfD. Of course MONGO is correct that being a sockpuppet of NU would also explain his early edits.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the evidence, all of it. The thing is, the CU requests from what I get come from your comments. That's why I'm asking. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer you got from MONGO is exactly why. He doesn't seem to believe that anyone would learn to edit as an anon, then create a handle. It's not so much a question of facts as of assumptions about how folks come to edit wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overly simplifying the situation. For example, while I believe that users often do edit as IPs before creating an account, I don't think that's what happened here. Perhaps SOD could provide a few of the IP addresses he used before created the SixofDiamonds account. Chaz ^Beckett 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's provided at least one (during one of the check users), and said that he doesn't know the ones used prior to a fairly recent move. The point is that MONGO seems to ignore the fact that one might learn how to do references or learn about AfD's as an anon. Though it is clear that most anon comments on Afd's are ignored; so, a reason to sign up a handle is to participate. --Rocksanddirt 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address of 74.73.16.230 (talk · contribs) was provided in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SixOfDiamonds. This IP only made two edits before the SixOfDiamonds account was created on 17:45, 12 June 2007. SOD must have some idea of the articles he was editing, which would enable him to look into the history for former IP addresses. I just find it difficult to believe that he can't provide any of the IP addresses where he claims to have learned to edit.

Incidentally, the first edit of that IP was "Included 2 more rappers" on Template:911ct. NuclearUmpf often edited articles on rappers and 9/11. Make of that what you will. Chaz ^Beckett 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that if SoD could provide information about other IPs he was using before registering an account that would be very helpful (and indeed would probably help exonerate him). It should not be difficult, as Chaz remarks, for SoD to find some of his old IP edits on various articles (particularly more obscure ones, which most of us edit) by looking through their histories and finding edits he remembers were his own. This would be a highly useful exercise for the purpose of this case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will actually try this, I had not thought of it from that angle. However it will be hard as I will not risk putting out my office's IP address for obvious concerns. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I suppose to know my past IP addresses? Chaz, you seem to create impossible situations to mark as proof. If I can tell you all of Zer0's tell-tale signs of editing, then its proof I am not him ... That was a good one, as if I know, as if I have the tools to go through all his edits and identify traits. Your latest, if I can provide IP's addresses of past edits then its proof I am not a sock. The absurd part of this is, if I wanted to I could jump on Wikiscanner and pick out hundreds of possible IP's. However the request for someone to provide past IP's is again a situation I could not possibly oblige. Lets try this in reverse as we did last time. Chaz, can you please provide your last 10 IP's you used before the start of this month. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven, I'm just wondering if you remember the kind of articles you were editing from an IP address before registering. If so, you could look at the history of those articles and, if you found contributions you recognized, you would be able to bring up the full list of contributions for that IP. If the contributions/style of contribution were similar to your SoD contributions this would help you in the ArbCom case I think. If you made a lot of edits using an IP presumably you would remember some of them, so I don't think it's at all impossible that you would be able to track down some of your past anon activity.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took your advice and did find one of my past IP's. I doubt I will be able to find many or any others since its like looking for a needle in a haystack. I did not really write articles or make large contributions until I decided to get a username. If it had not been for writing most of the article, I probably would not have been able to find this either.[15] The August 31st edits are mine. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that may turn out to be important information, and I hope others take a look at the contributions of that IP and consider the possible ramifications if it was indeed the editor now known as SoD who made those edits. Unfortunately we probably cannot definitively determine that (can we even determine if that is an NYC area IP address?--that at least would be useful). I for one feel it is very likely that it was SoD who made the IP edits and I'll explain why. On 8/31/06 User:24.90.253.91 radically revamped the article on the notorious NYC gang the Supreme Team. The user did not appear to have much knowledge about formatting sections and the like, so they were likely a new user. SoD also edited this same article almost a year later on August 17th, 2007--one day before Theresa Knott made the first comment which opened this ArbCom. Additionally, the Supreme Team was based in New York (SoD's location), was heavily influenced by the Five Percenter philosophy (SoD has edited extensively at The Nation of Gods and Earths--indeed he has more edits on that article than any other), and is of interest to many folks interested in hip-hop because of Kenneth McGriff's supposed connections to the hip-hop world (I believe SoD has also made some hip-hop related edits in the past). As such I think it is entirely possible if not likely that the user now known as SevenofDiamonds was editing from IP 24.90.253.91 on August 31, 2006, at which point he was not so familiar with Wiki formatting.

It should be noted that at this point in time ZeroFaults (this was prior to the creation of the NuclearUmpf account) was an extremely active editor who did edit on August 31st, primarily on the article Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. If the IP and SoD are the same, I think it makes it less likely that SoD is ZF/NU, though not impossible. Another possibility is that ZeroFaults did not log in for some reason and then proceeded to re-write the Supreme Team article. In support of that possibility it should be pointed out that the ZeroFaults account did not make any edits during the 20 or so minutes when the IP was adding to the Supreme Team entry--had the IP and ZF edited at the exact same moment it would obviously have made it hard to believe it was the same user. This is all speculative, but I think this should be pursued further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP (contribtions) also edited two rapper articles a few days prior to that, though they may be unrelated...however, Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf also edited rapper articles. Must just be a coincidence.--MONGO 05:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the IP is from a Brooklyn location, not that this means anything in itself.--MONGO 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zer0faults (NuclearUmpf) did not edit during the time period that IP did on 8/31/2006 [16].--MONGO 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, obviously if it's in Brooklyn (thanks for determining that) it could have been ZF (now reincarnated as SoD) or just SoD before he registered as he claims above. Also I already pointed out above that "the ZeroFaults account did not make any edits during the 20 or so minutes when the IP was adding to the Supreme Team entry." It is interesting though to move through the diffs of 24.90.253.91's edits to Supreme Team on 8/31. The user seems to be struggling with the article formatting (or pretending to, but that strikes me as incredibly unlikely), and also assigns numbers or letters to various sections of the article which is obviously not something we do and therefore a possible sign that it is indeed a new user (see this version for example). I looked back at an article ZF created in June of 2006, and he did not utilize numbers or letters to list out the various sections of the article (see this diff where ZF first broke the article into sections, and did not number the sections 1,2,3 as the anon IP did two months later). If the person editing as the anon IP was ZeroFaults, it seems odd that he would apparently have so much difficulty formatting the article and would number the various sections. It seems more likely that the IP was a fairly new user and not ZF forgetting to log in (or intentionally not logging in). I'd like to see what others think of this though as it might be possible to read the evidence another way and I certainly don't consider myself an expert in these matters. This material also maybe should go on the evidence page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like they cut and pasted from Microsoft Word or other editors that does heading indentations with 1), A), i), etc. They then used their knowledge of Wikiformat to quickly change it into the Wiki heading system. In fact it looks like plagiarism from here which had that header format. They rapidly converted the plagiaraied work to wiki format which shows a pretty experienced editor. --DHeyward 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link requires a log in. Try here and it is a copyvio[17]. Probably why Zer0faults decided to not use his real account then to make those edits.--MONGO 07:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that this IP's edits were made immediately before (16 minutes) Zer0faults made an edit at 18:41, 31 August 2006. On this date, the IP edited from 18:00-18:25 and Zer0faults edited from 18:41-21:02. Again, make of that what you will. Chaz ^Beckett 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the IP from Wikiscanner. I think this proves my point however. This is why I did not wish to present an IP, since this is the game that would be played. The fact that you would draw any possible conclusion is proof that MONGO, TBeatty/Dheyward/Chaz are just out to prove something. Could it be zer0? I do not know. I just picked a random NYC IP off wikiscanner with an IP related to an interest I had. Good job all. If this is not proof of confirmation bias, I do not know what is. As I stated, I don't listen to rap music, I guess no one is paying attention to anything I write as evidence anymore, or just ignoring it gleefully. I can provide an IP, well a large range to Arbcom if needed. However I cannot pick out my own edits from it, there are hundreds and I will obviously not present that info to the public due to my privacy concerns. So if any member of Arbcom, who is not someone MONGO keeps in touch with offline, would like to know the ranges, I will provide them. Then again, Arbcom has checkuser and can view my last few IP's on their own if I am not mistaken. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you lied about an IP's edits being yours and that's somehow supposed to be evidence you're telling the truth about not being a sockpuppet? Uh huh. Since you're now claiming that IP isn't yours (I have no idea whether I should believe this claim), how about providing an IP that actually is yours. It seems that whenever you're presented with straightforward questions you dance around the issue and play games. How about some actual answers for a change? Chaz ^Beckett 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the straws grasped at to then attempt to prove that was a link. The fact that you assume I am zero because I cannot tell you all of zero's editing traits. I am not going to concern myself with you as I think your backwards logic has proven plenty already. Had I shown some of zero's tell-tale signs, as if I know them, you would have claimed only zero could know those or some other absurd link, same with this case. You try to hard Chaz. As I said Arbcom has my IP, I do not need to provide it to the public. Since you are not an Arbcom member, I do not actually have to provide my personal information here for you. Your belief in my identity is irrelevant. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the straws in case people are wondering if anyone was grasping at straws. The edits from the IP are linked to zero because they do not take place at the exact moment. Lets examine this point alone. In order for me to exonerate myself, I would have to provide an IP editing an article at the exact moment zero is editing. To expand on this, according to Chaz and crew. I would have to dig through all of my old edits, if I can remember them from over 3 months ago, then see if I can find my edit out of whatever is there, then match it to the time zero was editing ... Let expand further, the article would obviously have to then be unrelated to anything zero has ever edited, what has zero and Nuclear edited? Let find out. Music, War, Iraq, Terrorism, 9/11. Well that removes one of my own interests, 9/11, and quite possibly terrorism and I can see narco-terrorism being used as a link between terrorism and then to zero. See where I am going, you are asking me to go look for a needle in a haystack. An edit taking place as the same time as someone else, in an article I have not edited in over 3 months in a topic unrelated to someone with 8,000 edits. In other words Chaz, stop asking me for the impossible. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the dancing around questions continues... Chaz ^Beckett 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz what are zero's tell tale signs? Lets see you answer ... Chaz please provide 3 IP's you have edited from. Or will you start dancing now? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero/NuclearUmpf's tell-tell signs are well documented on the evidence page. I only edit under this account, therefore I won't have any anonymous IP edits. You claimed that you previously edited as an IP, yet can't provide a single one as evidence. OK, now it's your turn. Are we going tango or waltz this time around? Chaz ^Beckett 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you cannot understand this, but Arbcom has my IP. No, I will not reveal to your my work IP. Since you failed to provide a prior IP and also zero's tell tale signs, you get to pick the dance. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, since it's quite clear there won't be any actual answers forthcoming, I'm disengaging. Chaz ^Beckett 12:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good because as I explained, will do so again, Arbcom has my IP's, they can track back my edits through there. Any more straws? Perhaps that IP is really an acronym for zero's name in binary? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because as when he did provide (what you thought) was his IP, you tried to twist it into 'evidence' of his sockpuppetry. Duh. I wouldn't give you that info either. ArbCom has that information can check his previous edits. 212.219.57.58 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it was incredibly disingenuous of SoD (and inadvisable in the context of this ArbCom) to provide an IP address and claim it was him, then turn around and claim it was not (like Chaz I now have no idea what to believe). If he could not find an old IP and/or simply did not want to because of privacy issues then he obviously should have just said that instead of providing false information. I have been assuming good faith with SoD (in part because he has made some good contributions here) and taking a bit of an innocent until proven guilty approach with these sockpuppet allegations (much more so than a lot of folks). Though I think there is some strong evidence that SoD is NU, there is also some confirmation bias in MONGO's evidence so I have been interested to explore possible exculpatory evidence and was thus taking SoD's assertions that this anon IP was him in good faith. The fact that he lied about that IP (for reasons which were not explained) and is giving what I take to be cryptic answers to Chaz's straightforward questions above is thus extremely disappointing, and quite frankly I think it does a lot of harm to SoD in this case and to the ability of editors commenting here to assume that he is being straightforward and truthful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not violate my own privacy further in a good faith manner. I will not provide further fire for anyone, since it seems that was the goal of asking for my IP as shown by the silly accusations that followed. Sorry about how you ended up feeling, but the actions following the IP being presented is exactly what I figured would happen. There was no good answer. Providing an IP would violate my privacy by revealing my employer, not providing one some how is proof that Chaz is right and I am an evil villain on Wikipedia. I decided to provide a false one for the simple fact is Chaz made a similar argument with no exonerating path, hence I knew where he was going. Again sorry BigTime, but the predictability of people to grasp at straws became obvious. As I stated, Arbcom has my IP and they can review all of my past edits in a variety of topics. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a way to appease everyone. Ask an Arbcom member the questions you feel will help you. They will look over what you are asking, examine it, and determine what should and can be revealed without revealing my employer. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an understandable response, and it's the one you should have given from the beginning if privacy was your concern--the deception was completely unnecessary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm confused. According to a comment by Rocksanddirt SOD "...said that he doesn't know the ones used prior to a fairly recent move." Forgetting an old IP address sounded plausible, which is why I suggested looking at article history to see if he could find his former IP. Then SOD provided a IP address, even explicitly stating that certain edits were his. Next he claims that wasn't his IP, and he made the whole thing up to prove a point. Then he claims that the ArbCom has his IP address, but which one are we talking about? His former one(s) where he learned to edit, or his current one? Now there's the claim that due to privacy reasons, he doesn't want to disclose his IP. Which, if any, of these statements are the truth? Is anyone else having a hard time following the tales being told? Chaz ^Beckett 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information added to the Supreme Team article[18] is akin to the types of articles that Diamonds seems interested in as noted on his current userpage. I thought he was giving us his real life IP at that time, over a year ago. Now that he is claiming that this was not actually the IP he used then, but instead one he retrieved via wikiscanner (as he is now claiming), I don't know what the point was--MONGO 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Arbcom, they will tell you if I edited from that IP, or have edited that article since. They have my IP. Its ok your confused Chaz, you are not really, you are just being dramatic. You asked for an IP that could prove my innocent. Anticipating the drama about to unfold, I provided an IP. Like expected the masses flooded in and attempted to state zer0 made the edit while logged off his account, in order to hide his copyright violation, then re-logged into his own account and continued editing articles on Turkish something or other. The response was predictable. The IP I would have had to provide would have had to been editing at the exact moment zero had been editing for it to appear as anything other then something zero wrote it seems, according to the gallery that is, which is pretty absurd. Again, for those who did not read it, ask Arbcom any questions you have, I am sure they will handle them responcibly and not reveal my person information or employer. Why everyone has not compiled a list already? I do not know, they seem to think the more they pressure, the more likely I am to reveal more personal information, you guys if so bent on linking something, should prepare some questions for Arbcom to provide the answers for here, for everyone to see. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add Arbcom would have my previous edits, because my job IP's are within a tight range. They will be able to see the rotation easily. Just to clarify for some. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 from KWSN to MONGO[edit]

More a of a curiosity question here, no real impact on the case. Why didn't you open the case and Teresa Knott open it instead? Kwsn(Ni!) 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't do forum shopping. I took a more streamlined set of evidence to arbitration enforcement, where no consensus was reached to block Diamonds. I was seriously going to drop it, but Diamonds made a few more misrepresentations about me, I responded his baiting and Theresa opened the case since she and others saw it as needing to go to arbcom. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time on this matter for anything sinister...I don't have a problem with ban evasion either, so long as those that evade their bans don't resume arguing with the same editors and over vitually the same issues as those that led to their original bans.--MONGO 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

1) The use of sockpuppets, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lifted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2 and modified. Please tweak. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking[edit]

2) Editors that follow other editors around to engage them in arguments are in violation of wikistalking guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed--MONGO 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yep. Even if someone has a pattern of bad editing, the correct thing to do is not following them around and arguing with them. -Amarkov moo! 22:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I would vote on AfD's I found interesting and usually did not even engage MONGO on those pages, or left a remark, my 2 cents and never returned. This is what separates "wikistalking" from participating in items on another persons contribution list. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith[edit]

3) From WP:AGF "This page in a nutshell: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. "

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While the guideline is not a rule, it is helpful to state that there has been a substantial lack of good faith in this disupute. --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed whole heartedly. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy[edit]

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard stuff, really. Kirill 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser is not for fishing[edit]

5) Checkuser is not for fishing. Editors should avoid filing checkuser request with the sole purpose of fishing for sockmaster accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This has nothing to do with me...I never once requested checkuser on Diamonds. I made one edit total to one of the checkuser requests. I wasn't going to waste my time with checkuser since I knew the results would be stale and undoable. I guess all those that filed checkusers on Diamonds did so "just" to eliminate him...hardly...they did so because they were convinced he was a sockpuppet, probably someone evading a ban. My evidence is completely independent of the checkusers, and connects Diamonds with banned editor NuclearUmpf. I commented that Diamonds is probably a banned editor, and named a few potentials early on and long before I started compiling my current information.--MONGO 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You once stated you believed I was 5 other banned users, can you name them please and why you thought that way. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those checkusers were filed (as they usually are) due to your editing style and argumentativeness, leading many others to conclude you might be a banned editor. My direct involvement in those checkusers was minimal. I suggested a number of others who had similar POV's, but my current evidence is not related to those checkuser requests.--MONGO 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You actually do not know why they were filed since you did not initiate them nor speak for those people. So again I ask, you once stated you thought I was 5 other banned users, can you please name them. Just to point out you went from having no involvement to as you put it "minimal" involvement, only having "suggested a number of others who had similar POV's" This is contrary to what you stated regarding these RFCU's earlier. This also goes to show I was RFCU'd for my PoV, a violation of RFCU, and the basis for MONGO's gathering of evidence was my counter-POV to them. It should also be noted the political leaning of Nuclear is quite contrary to my own. As my proof noted, they attempted to delete the very article I have defended. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, both you and Nuclear support 9/11 conspiracy theories and also support the war in Iraq. I have no doubt that you have modified your principles over time regarding U.S. involvement in state terrorism. This isn't some effort to eliminate political opponents...if that was the case, I'd go after them all...this is to deal with your ban evasion.--MONGO 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the war in Iraq. I support our president. I do not support the worthless deaths over oil. I do support the invasion of Afghanistan, I do support the removal of Saddam. I do not support the occupation and means to take care of it. Would you go after them all? RFCU was filed on Givanni33, the other editor on that article, one was filed on Bmedley, also an editor on that article, we were actually accused of all being eachother, that would have removed everyone but Stone and Travb (who has since walked away I believe). I was accused of being Fairness, another editor who once edited the article, now Nuclear, who edited the article. What an interesting picture. This arbcom deals with your accusation, your attacks, your harassment, your use of RFCU that you went from having no dealings with to having "minimal." As well as my own behavior, which little evidence seems to point to me being disruptive. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't once request a checkuser on you. I am not the one doing the wikistalking. I didn't bother to provide the diffs showing your edit warring/incivilities and other disruption as I see you as a ban evader to begin with...why would I bother with the rest?--MONGO 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach, lets see how that plays out. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This has been a significant part of this dispute. People should be able to edit Wikipedia without being subjected to checkuser request with the sole purpose of trying to get that editor blocked for reasons that didn't warrant a block or certainly a ban to begin with. One would hope that this was self-evident - apparently it isn't. MartinDK 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO this is a proposed principle not a proposed finding of facts. Anyone, regardless of whether they are named as a party or not, are subject to ArbCom's scrutiny. I specifically did not mention your name anywhere. I consider you a very valuable editor who happens to be easily baited and drawn into disputes. MartinDK 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...the thing is though, that those who did file the checkuser requests did so because they believed he is a ban evader...I know Aude is an outstading contributor to this project as well and doubt very seriously that she would make such a request unless she was confident that Diamonds was evading a ban. However, you are right...checkuser requests shouldn't be made for fishing.--MONGO 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aude already stated they did so cause of what you stated in the previous RFCU. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in principle. But unless such fishing is done with an intent to harass someone, requesting it is not a bad action, really. It's just that the checkusers aren't willing to do it. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appopriate use of CheckUser[edit]

6) CheckUser is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken directly from CheckUser policy. It's more general than the above principal. Chaz ^Beckett 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but unlike the above principle, this doesn't really apply to this case. I don't think people doubt that the requests were made in a good faith belief that 7OD was a sockpuppet, and they were indeed filed to check for sockpuppet abuse. The issue is whether or not the requests were made just to try a bunch of sockmasters until one of them worked. -Amarkov moo! 22:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering MONGO below went from stating he had no hand in the other RFCU's, to stating he had a minor hand, only recommending people to others for them to check me against ... --SevenOfDiamonds 12:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque[edit]

7) Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, stolen from workshop at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. A lot of people here seem to be saying "but he was mean to me FIRST! That justifies my meanness!" -Amarkov moo! 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, very true. See also Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing?, particularly the "don't argue that your antisocial behaviour is acceptable just because another editor hasn't been sanctioned" part. Picaroon (t) 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All users are entitled to civil treatment[edit]

8) Users who are suspected, or even proven, to have engaged in sockpuppet abuse, vandalism, or other kinds of disruptive behaviour must still be treated with civility. Suspicions may prove unfounded and, even when they are found to be correct, no good purpose is served by harassing, insulting, or otherwise abusing the user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There has been talk about how 'whether SoD is or is not deemed a sockpuppet' should dictate how other events are judged. I couldn't disagree more strongly. His 'guilt' or 'innocence' is irrelevant to all issues of behaviour by others. We can't allow people to insult or harass those they suspect of wrongdoing. If they're wrong we've sanctioned abuse of an innocent person who came here to help... and even if they are right, we lower ourselves and validate the complaints of our critics by ever acting that way. This principle has been part of our conduct policies for years... yet there are always a few who'll claim it is 'ok' to insult people if you're really really sure they 'deserve' it. --CBD 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically an extension of WP:AGF, but makes perfect sense. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree, I think it's good to spell this out in this fashion, though personally I feel maintaining a high degree of civility toward suspected sockpuppets is more important than civility toward proven socks--however incivility to anyone is pointless and often destructive. Civility in the former case is absolutely mandatory and failure to do so can damage the project, civility in the latter case is just desirable and incivility to known socks, as CBDunkerson notes, serves no purpose.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to some extent. If someone is a vandal/sockpuppet/whatever, it's not reasonable to demand that everyone treat them the same way they would a good faith contributor. But blatant incivility is unjustified, especially with a lack of proven abuse. -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do feel that even the 'proven troublemakers' should be treated 'the same way as everyone else'... for two reasons. First, people have different standards and will often take, 'I am convinced' as equaling 'proof'. Second, if someone starts out doing silly vandalism or eventually does so in frustration, but is talked around and trying to contribute positively to the encyclopedia it does nothing but harm to go around calling them 'vandal' or picking at every little thing they do which might be construed as less than perfect. You may be right that, 'it is not reasonable' to expect Wikipedians to treat such 'troublemakers' with the same courtesy as anyone else, but if so I would consider that a failing of the community... which does more harm than all the 'troublemakers' combined would cause without it. --CBD 11:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that you are not overlooking the wikistalking and baiting commentary I and others have had to deal with from this editor for some time now. The rest of your argument is simply too utopian to be realistically applied.--MONGO 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the very aspect of the situation on which I hope the arbcom will focus its attention. MONGO, you seem to think you have the right to treat people in an uncivil manner simply because you suspect they are a sockpuppet or vandal. CBD's statement is not utopian, but precisely what policy requires. Whether somebody is the worst troll this project has ever seen, or the most prolific contributor to date, civility is not optional. - auburnpilot talk 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't think that way, however, it definitely appears that CBD is ignoring the fact that Diamonds has wikistalked me, has baited me and has been incivil himself and I am not perfect and there are times that expecting anyone to be perfect when faced with what I have had to deal with is indeed utopian. I doubt that anyone on this project is able to be perfect.--MONGO 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address this, since its being repeated so often. Each case of me "bating you" is preceded with you insulting me. Per my own evidence section. The wikistalking showed no intent to disrupt either, as required for it to be wikistalking. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO if you really think the idea that "all users are entitled to civil treatment" is "utopian" we have a real problem. CBD's statement does not say that civil treatment will happen all the time, rather it's a principal (indeed a core one of Wikipedia) which we should all strive to remain in line with. SoD may have followed you to a couple of articles, but I don't think he was disruptive, and your evidence of his incivility and baiting is rather weak--neither rise to a level whereby I think incivility in reply is understandable. You also were not only incivil to SoD on the US state terrorism article, but to other editors there as well, some of whom were clearly not stalking you. The incivility greatly contributed to the generally unpleasant atmosphere at that article. If someone is wikistalking (and in this case if that was happening at all it was very small scale) and making comments you find annoying that does not excuse incivility, just as if I am reverting vandals and they then repeatedly vandalize my user page or call me a "wiki-Nazi" I don't fly off the handle, rather I warn them repeatedly and eventually report them to AIV. Though you claim otherwise, I agree with AuburnPilot that you seem to think your incivility is excusable if it is in response to what you believe are problem users and because you have been trolled so much in the past. Many folks find that disturbing, as well as your tendency to brush off past incivility on your part with phrases like "I am not perfect" which suggest that you accept little responsibility for some of your actions and do not fully comprehend how they have contributed to a nasty atmosphere that forces us into places like this section of the ArbCom case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is kind of what I am referring to. When you start off a comment with "MONGO"...it comes across as scolding, and not in itself, all that civil. The written word has a lot of power, especially in this type of forum where there are endless disputes on some articles and other areas. I did not find you to be civil in discussions on that page as well, and in fact, yours and Diamonds baiting and accusatory stances is the only reason I ceased editing there. I walked away from the argument by not editing there and I don't believe it is fair that I felt compelled to do so simply because I had to avoid you and Diamonds. So, civility is often in the eyes of the beholder. In response to CBD below, I definitely do appreciate his usual efforts to remind all of us that we must strive to remain civil as much as possible, maybe even more so when dealing with problematic editors. However, I reiterate that though I do generally try to adhere to this, to expect anyone to do so all the time is, yes, unrealistic.--MONGO 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started off my comment with the word "MONGO" because I was directing my comment to you and wanted to make that clear--it's a pretty standard rhetorical technique and usually is not interpreted as scolding. Although I'm sure you are just misremembering, you are simply not being accurate about the history of the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States page. You continued to edit there after I had left, so obviously my "baiting and accusatory stances" (whatever that means) did not drive you off. I noted in a July 12th talk page comment (in the midst of a productive collaboration with users Merzbow and East 718 that actually moved the article forward, which was rare) that I would be leaving the article soon and taking a wikibreak. My last article edit (a trivial one) was on July 13th and aside from a couple of minor talk page comments I did not participate at all in the week that followed after which the article went into protection because of edit warring. You were editing the article just over 24 hours prior to the protection [19], and had already edited it multiple times after I stopped participating ([20], [21], [22]. Obviously I did not drive you off the article and indeed no one else did either--it got protected so no one could edit it. Additionally, you told Seabhcan on July 10th (after you and I already had a number of interactions on the article talk page) that I was "not a problematic editor." As I said I am sure you are just misremembering, but it is simply inaccurate to say that you left that page because I was baiting you given that you did not leave that page (actually I did) and that you specifically noted you did not find me to be a problem editor. This is a bit off-topic obviously but I'm only taking time to clarify this since this is an ArbCom case and I do not want my past participation mischaracterized.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my last comment to that article and the talkpage was on July 20th...you made numerous comments after that [23]...I took the article off my watchlist because I was tired of arguing with you and Diamonds and a few others in which you had commented rudely as well...[24], [25]. I did not want to continue to work on the article anymore since it was obvious to me that yourself and a few others had little comprehension that sometimes the best editing is done by removing POV additions to try and get it to be less of a WP:SYNTH and more WP:NPOV. That you would repeatedly accuse editors removing POV from the article as not being helpful indicated to me that there was little chance that real forward progress there was possible.--MONGO 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to edit the article up until the time it was protected and non-admins could not edit. It is therefore quite obvious that the protected status of the article is what made you stop editing it, and since anyone can see that it is silly to claim otherwise. I did comment on the talk page after the article went into protection but I believe the only person I interacted with was Ultramarine. I did not interact with you at all after protection and obviously my post-protection comments to one other editor on one specific issue did not affect you or your ability to participate on the talk page. Your diffs purporting to show "rudeness" do reveal heated comments on my part (there were a plethora of those from all parties as you well know), but I hardly think they are rude. They are certainly not uncivil, and certainly did not drive you off the article since you continued editing for two weeks after that. Also after those comments you told Seabhcan I was not a problem editor so obviously you did not have a big problem with them at the time. You are of course free to think that I somehow drove you off that article, but the reality is quite different and readily apparent from my last comment and from the history page of the article. This is a distraction so I won't discuss it any more.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO. I haven't looked into whether you have been mean to SoD, he has been mean to you, both, or neither. Plenty of other people seem to have commented on those issues and they aren't my interest. I'm citing a principle which I think important and relevant. The claims that determination of SoD's status as 'a sockpuppet or not' should have bearing on other matters initially prompted it, but the same principle may be equally applicable to SoD's statement (immediately above) that his 'baiting you' was in response to you 'insulting' him. If it was baiting (though I suspect he was quoting that as the accusation made, rather than to agree with it) then that's bad regardless of whether you were insulting him or not.

I quite agree that no one is perfect... I'm not, and therefor clearly nobody else can possibly be. :] And yes, thinking that people could adhere to this principle all the time certainly is utopian and unrealistic. However, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this is part of Wikipedia's policies on behaviour. This principle describes how people are supposed to act. That it will be bent and broken from time to time is inevitable and, in my opinion, need not be a matter of great concern... but this must remain our standard. Believe me, I know all too well how difficult it can be to remain polite in the face of abuse and harassment, but I also know what comes of it when you don't. --CBD 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was quoted as an accusation. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Results[edit]

1) Four checkuser request regarding Six/SevenOfDiamonds have come back as unrelated to the other users in the request. However, SOD has publicly revealed his IP in one of the requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, see Teresa Knott's statement for the links. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Checkuser was not run on Lovelight as it was stale. The SevenOfDiamonds was declined because it was stale. Computer security magazine article writers have written about this. --DHeyward 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of the kitchen sink approach. I am again being accused of being Lovelight. I am sure a full list of "evidence" showing 9/11 articles and typos will soon be prepared. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are the four checkuser requests:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SixOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lovelight

Note that none of these requests relate to the current allegation that SOD is sockpuppet of User:NuclearUmpf. The IP data for this user would now be unavailable. Chaz ^Beckett 14:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

2) Six/SevenOfDiamonds is a puppet account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean a puppet account of a banned user? or just a secondary account of someone? There are different kinds of puppeting, some are less bad than others. --Rocksanddirt 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's evidence that he's a sockpuppet of a specific person, then that's the proper FOF. Not one person was willing to block before evidence of him being NuclearUmpf was presented, so clearly there is not enough evidence of being a sockpuppet in general. -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Thatcher131 there was also no consensus when it was brought to Arbcom enforcement either. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

2.1) Six/SevenOfDiamonds is a puppet account of previously banned User:NuclearUmpf and is being used to evade the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, I think this is what Tom Harrison was getting at. --Rocksanddirt 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (it's been changed, but I think this works better also) --Rocksanddirt 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems better than FOF #2 since it specifies whose sockpuppet SOD is alleged to be. Chaz ^Beckett 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rocksanddirt and Chaz that this is a better version of FOF #2--allegations relate specifically to SoD being NuclearUmpf so that is what needs to be determined.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock[edit]

3) Six/SevenOfDiamonds is not a puppet account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't establish this, and there's no need to establish it. Innocent until proven guilty. Melsaran (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can, we do it all the time. Sometimes a checkuser says it's not a sock, sometimes that is is, and sometimes that it can't be determined. Other times it's determined by writing style, behavioral quirks, time of edits, areas of interest, etc. Most of the time it never occurs to anyone to doubt that two editors are independent. Sometimes it looks like one is a sock, as now. Certainly there is a need to establish it. If he is, he is violating Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If he isn't, he deserves to have his name cleared. I hope the arbs will look at the evidence and decide one or the other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that SOD is not a sockpuppet. It is, however, possible to conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to be sure that he is a sockpuppet. Melsaran (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

5) Subjecting an editor to numerous check user requests is a form of harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --SevenOfDiamonds 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

True, but before someone makes another MONGO comment, he did not request any of those, he just commented on them. Also, shouldn't this be in the proposed principles section? Kwsn(Ni!) 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations for 3 of them were his, as well as a new accusation I am a user named Rex. It is on my evidence page. He made the accusation and Aude posted the RFCU stating what MONGO had stated, that I was Fairness, and Rootology. As for where it goes I am not familiar with this "legal system," please feel free to move if in the wrong location. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying other users were acting as a proxy pretty much (just to clarify)? Kwsn(Ni!) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aude admitted to filing the RFCU solely on MONGO's accusation. I am not going to accuse anyone of anything I do not have proof of. Inciting others into accusations because of your own however is something that should be seen. If MONGO is so respected by the community that they act on his behalf, then he should be more careful with his accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aude stated in a now deleted Rfc you and others filed on me that you were a sock account...so did Bishonen....that was long before Aude filed a checkuser on you.[26]...I made one comment to these four checkuser requests and that was to note that you had already stated you were using one of the IP's noted.--MONGO 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I can't see it, but I believe it was the Rfc which was deleted on 11:41, July 6, 2007--MONGO 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your full comment was "I am more inclined to beleive that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Giovanni33 than Six/SevenOfDiamonds...but I have no doubt that SevenOfDiamonds is a sock, probably of a banned editor and that he has been following me around to varous articles. Diamonds may very well be banned editors Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)." [27] Seems your above statement is in contention with your actual one. Bmedley was later ruled to not be a sockpuppet of Giovanni33. Another accusation MONGO was sure of. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aude's evidence then consisted solely of your accusation: [28] --SevenOfDiamonds 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all comments made before I connected you with your real account, namely NuclearUmpf. If you believe I am in control of those filing checkuser requests on you, you are mistaken...I knew all the requests would be stale for the most part. The fact si that you were IDed from the beginning, due to your familiarity with wikimarkup to be a reincarnation...it simply took time to figure out which one. Had you not been edit warring, and arguing with so many people, checkuser requests would have never happened. I have no problem with banned editors returning...but if they get right back into the same arguments with the same people that led to their original ban, then I do.--MONGO 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant stating of your attack as fact, will not convince anyone of your evidence. The same evidence that also connected me to Auburn Pilot if believed. They stated I share as many edit summaries with them as with Nuclear. Apparently "typo" is not a rare edit summary and misspelling (sometimes) words that 1/4 of the Wiki population misspell. Not everyone that argues with you is a sockpuppet. This includes Bmedley and Giovanni and Benhocking. I am going to leave this discussion as that, I think its clear your evidence is pretty flimsy and a pretty bad attempt to draw links, even misstating an edit to attempt to draw Nuclear closer to Latin American issues. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonality[edit]

6) New York editors as demonstrated by User:SevenOfDiamonds/IPFallacy often edit 9/11 and terrorism related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --SevenOfDiamonds 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Could be worded to "users who have an interest in an area are more likely to edit articles related to that area". Just generalizing. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, this could possibly be stated on the evidence page to "disprove" MONGO's allegiation that you must be a sockpuppet of Nuclear because you also live in NY and edit 9/11-related articles, but it is not really relevant to the case an sich. It's unrelated to the issue at hand. Melsaran (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not familiar with how this all works. Was attempting to duplicate similar items. My understanding is the finding of facts should match my counter-points. If not feel free to move where most appropriate. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this FoF is proposed mostly to counter MONGO's argument, right? Then you could submit it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. I don't really see why the arbcom should adopt it as a "finding of fact" directly related to the case, because the case is about you and MONGO, not about the relationship between New York editors and 9/11-related articles. Just my two cents/pennies :) Melsaran (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the above because as I stated, I believe, and through my own evidence, showed New York editors edit articles related to 9/11 and terrorism quite frequently. As I stated if it is in the wrong place, feel free to move it I guess. I am not familiar with all of this. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption[edit]

7) No examples of disruption have been presented as evidence against SevenOfDiamonds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --SevenOfDiamonds 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is...there is evidence that you have had conflicts, that you are incivil and bait people, and that you have a history of stalking.--MONGO 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah participating on an AfD you voted on, and an article you had not edited in 2 years, how could I forgot. My conflicts of asking Aude not to pass judgment on me without discussing the issue. My removing Tom's warning and ignoring the 5 other times we worked together on the article and the compliments I have since paid him. My conflict with TBeatty which consisted of explaining to them they cannot use their personal definition of terrorism in the article. The examples of baiting which all feature you attacking me prior. I was happy you mentioned those as I posted the statements before my own, you calling me a sockpuppet, a waste of time, etc. And only after I proposed this did you put together that obviously twisted section which highlites your own incivility and attempts to bait me, ignoring your own posts prior to my own of course. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support, I don't know whether he's a sockpuppet, but he's not really disruptive as an editor, especially when considering the amount of harassment he endures. Melsaran (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This edit is disruptive [29]. That was you. --DHeyward 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you purposefully ignore the two preceding comments by MONGO, lets see what they were [30] "Why not just log in with your old account...the one you used before you got banned?" - Again calling me a sockpuppet, this time on a RFA. [31] "Good idea...do whatever you can to cover up the fact that your priority here is POV pushing and being a jerk" And calling another a jerk. Good evidence Dheyward, I will add it to my list of violations of WP:CIVIL I found, since I couldnt find this one on my own. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get to suspend WP:AGF and civility rules to continue disrupting the RfA regardless of what other editors do. This finding was a question of whether "no examples of disruption" have been presented. having an excuse for your uncivil disruptive attacks might be mitigating when contemplating the length of your block but it doesn't support that claim that no disruption was presented--DHeyward 05:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh so you are admitting MONGO was uncivil to me, and my response was only in response to them. So I was being trolled since they were attacking me on a RFA. Your whole argument here has been that MONGO has been the victim of trolling so sometimes he gets uncivil, yet you are stating that if I did it, its not ok. I think people understand your position fully now. The dif you provided also just proves further how much and how often MONGO has attacked me. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are incorrect. You seem to believe you had an excuse for you behaviour. I never said that MONGO was uncivil toward you. It's obvious that you either perceived you were slighted and created an excuse for your own disruption, or you are just trolling right now in an attempt to be argumentative. Regardless, your behavior doesn't support the finding in this section. --DHeyward 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You honestly do not find the above to be uncivil? Attacking me and another user on a RFA. In addition to them being uncivil, they lead to confusion by other people who were assuming I was a banned user because of MONGO's attitude.[32] I even tried removing his personal attack.[33] However MONGO felt he had a right to call people jerks.[34][35]. Eventually an admin had to step in and explain to MONGO it was a personal attack:[36] "reverting the revert; calling someone a jerk most certainly can be considered a personal attack" MONGO then reverts the admin.[37] The admin then tells MONGO to calm down and reverting the personal attack back under the guise of reverting vandalism was "shady." MONGO replies by telling the admin, Evula, "How dare you remove my comment after I was attacked and insulted there by that JERK! Either offer your warnings equally or hand in your admin bit now" [38]The admin removes the section.[39] I guess it does not matter in the end if you found his insults to be personal attacks, because an admin did, and removed them as such. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find MONGO's comments to be anything. This section is about a finding of whether or not YOU, not MONGO, were disruptive. You're contribution to that tit-for-tat edit war was disruptive, in tone, content and quantity. That's it. That's all I said. You can continue to try and justify and excuse WHY you were disruptive, but it only creates a clearer picture of your disruption.--DHeyward 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? I removed his comment once. An admin agreed it was a violation of WP:NPA. That means I had all right to remove it. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are more than capable of removing personal attacks and probably would have if you asked. You removing it, however, was disruptive. Your personal attacks after removing it was even more disruptive. Again, none of this supports this finding of "no disruption." --DHeyward 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evidence of disruption has been presented against him. It has also been presented against MONGO. It's a very rare person who has never done anything bad, so it doesn't really matter. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL[edit]

8) MONGO has been uncivil to SevenOfDiamonds and other editors as shown here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --SevenOfDiamonds 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The most disturbing part of this case is that this is even remotely controversial. Yes. -Amarkov moo! 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question of it. Mongo is generally incivil when he disagrees with an editor, but he's an 'olde tyme' valued contributor, so it's ok. --Rocksanddirt 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that's true. So the disturbing part is that it's controversial that this is BAD. -Amarkov moo! 03:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS[edit]

1) SevenOfDiamonds has engaged in wikistalking MONGO as shown here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed--MONGO 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking specifically states "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Disruption is not voting differently then a person, nor is it commenting on AfD's as shown by MONGO's "evidence." The information MONGO is removing from the World Trade Center article is a direct quote from the noted Scripps survey which is being used as the source. It is the 9th paragraph of the source [40]. Quoting a survey that is being used as a source, is also not disruption. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SevenOfDiamonds used his IP and his SixOfDiamonds account to edit war with 5 other editors over the Scripps survey info to 7 WTC article and was blocked for 3RR [41]--MONGO 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was still new and unaware of policy. Care to note how many blocks I have received since? None. Live and learn. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, the [here evidence I have is that you then continued to track my contributions after that 3RR block, based on the timestamps, five more incidents of stalking are noted. Do I need to note more?--MONGO 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "evidecne" of me voting on an AfD that you also voted on is not "Wikistalking" as noted above, please read the section on what Wikistalking is. Maybe you have more damning evidence such as the WP:CANVASS page where I am showing that both groups are actually in agreement on the issue, which I believe you both realized and eventually agreed on the language. That was a great example of your understanding of Wikistalking.[42] The Farenheit 9/11 one was good as well, I did find it through your talk page, noting you had not participated and did not in 2 years. I would hardly call that Wikistalking. Am I not permitted to participate anywhere you do? Even if you had not in 2 years? You appear to be running out of straws. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MONGO has a history of over-reacting[edit]

10) MONGO has a history of over-reacting to those who have the appearance of going after him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, yoinked from a previous arbcom case that he was in. Kwsn(Ni!) 13:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO isn't flawless and is easily baited. Looking at it that way you could add me and countless other editors to that finding as well. MONGO needs to learn not to take the bait when someone posts a complaint on ANI about something that could be easily dealt with in a short heads up on his talk page. Those with an axe to grind need to stop jumping on MONGO whenever they see an opportunity to upset him. Repeatedly pointing out every mistake an editor makes is as disruptive as making those mistakes. MartinDK 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified a little to make it more accurate. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, some things can't be dealt with through his talk page. If you post on his talkpage, you might get a reasoned answer, but if you're asking him to be more civil, you're much more likely to get "shut up [insert condescending name here], I'm dealing with the trolls". -Amarkov moo! 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. MONGO there is no evidence that MONGO has overreacted. He has reacted to trolls (Bmedley Sutler and FAAFA being the most recent to joing the ranks of perma-banned). Reacting to trolls, is not the same as overreacting. It's a shame that being the victim of incivlity has the effect of associating the victim with the crime. --DHeyward 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:CABAL[edit]

1) There is no WP:CABAL. Multiple editors requesting multiple, independent checkusers is an indication of a disruptive editor, not vindication even if there is no confirmation of the multiple requests for checkuser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the user I am claimed to have an issue with. The one I do not have many interactions with, one that filed a checkuser. DHeyward is TBeatty who filed a check user claiming I am Lovelight, then started to attempt to link me to Rex. They edit many articles with MONGO and as I stated, I found it odd they would even think anything of me, since we have little to no interactions before the RFCU. MONGO has already stated by the way TBeatty that he had proposed the ppl for me to be checkuser'd against. Just to make it clear, I do not think there is a "cabal", however as admitted by MONGO it seems he had a hand in the RFCU cases. This is contrary partially to already established facts. You can see here Where MONGO already states he proposed the people for the RFCU's. He considers that minimal involvement. This also shows the checkuser requests were not independent of each other. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show anything at all...I was not "behind" the checkuser requests and your continued assertions I was is absurd.--MONGO 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already stated "My direct involvement in those checkusers was minimal. I suggested a number of others who had similar POV's," This is after you asserted you had no involvement. They cannot be independent, yet you had a hand in suggesting who they were suppose to ran against. The absurdity here is you attempting to back pedal from what you already admitted and what is linked to as your own statement. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong...those checkusers were run independantly of me...I did not request them, yes, I was asked a few times and I gave my early opinion of who you might be and that is all. I commented only once on those checkuser requests. More conspiracy theories I see...DHeyward is correct, multiple checkusers submitted by multiple parties is indicative of a problematic editor, not vice versa.--MONGO 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its a matter for Arbcom to observe your quote, your statement below. And see if you having involvement in all of them is really independent. In general I agree, it is surely possible that multiple RFCU's can obviously mean the user is problematic, if they are indeed independent, however your involvement in all of them is what makes the difference, they are no longer independent then. As for your depth of involvement, that is further up to them to decide, you went from having no part in them, to now being the one who "suggested a number of others who had similar POV's." I will leave it at that, and for Arbcom to decide. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rephrase the end of that? I'm not clear exactly what you mean by "not vindication even if there is no confirmation."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more. It means that if 5 separate editors think you are the reincarnation of 5 banned editors because of teh manner of your edits, that is an indication of a problem even if checkuser can't confirm they are sockpuppets. It is not a vindication of the editor. --DHeyward 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal has instructed me to support this proposal. - Crockspot 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that's, like, a paradox or something! Seriously though there's no way I could think of supporting this statement when it's phrased in a general manner like this. I think it should be reworded so it applies specifically to this case and the parties involved. Obviously it is totally in the realm of possibility for several editors to request checkuser for one editor and for all of them to be wrong (i.e. the editor in question is not a sock)--a possibility which this FOF as worded would seem to deny. If this were rephrased so it applied only to this case it would be a very plausible finding of fact I think, though I feel the reference to WP:CABAL is quite unnecessary (and was perhaps meant a bit tongue-in-cheek?).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the specific part "not vindication" can be removed and it will be less confusing to you. SOD seems to have stipulated that the lack of checkuser confirmations (i.e. stale data) has vindicated him and has made him a victim. In fact, the independant checkuser requests are more an indication of his disruption. --DHeyward 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since MONGO admitted to having a hand in the RFCU's filed by proposing the people for them,[43] I have stated it was an attempt at harassment and a violation of my privacy. The fact that 5 were made shows not that I am a bad or suspicious editor, since they all originated with one persons "proposals" but shows clearly someone had a problem with me. Considering you filed one of them as "TBeatty," for clarity of the participants, can you please sign your name here as such. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He had no hand in the RfCU where you appear to be the banned editor "Lovelight". In fact, he thought your were NuclearUmpf. However, the manner of your edits and the disruption by Lovelight were identical. The fact that you admit you made identical edits as Lovelight who was later banned for those edits is an admission of being disruptive.[44][45] [46]. I thought you were Lovelight and a sock of a banned editor. I thought it was pretty strong evidence as did others. Only when MONGO presented stronger evidence that you were NuclearUmpf did others drop the Lovelight comparison. I don't think it really matters whether you are the sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned editor. The effect is the same. --DHeyward 04:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely matters whether SoD is tied to Lovelight or NuclearUmpf. This case is (or has been) about the the question of whether SoD is NU, but now you seem to saying (both here and on the evidence page) that he is Lovelight. Is this your argument? If so that's fine, but I don't think the argument "clearly SoD is a sock, whether it's NU or Lovelight it doesn't matter" is acceptable and it seems you might also be saying that. If you still believe SoD is Lovelight perhaps you should propose that as a finding of fact. Incidentally, when you made the checkuser request for SoD/Lovelight, User:Aude commented: "I know what IPs (and geographic location) that Lovelight edited from, which were revealed previously, and they are not a match for SevenOfDiamonds or the IP address in question." That seemed to be the end of it so I was surprised to see this brought up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that multiple editors have found his edits disruptive enough to file checkuser requests and have found his editos to be so similiar to persons who were banned for disruption that they considered him to be the same editor. if an editor chooses to edit in such a fashion as to be indistinguishable from banned disruptive editors, there should be consequence. Being identified as supporting a multitude of disruptive edits, for which others have been been banned, is not acceptable. It is an indication of a problem editor. It certainly isn't exoneration ashe claims. --DHeyward 07:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "multiple independent checkusers" just begs the question, considering the dispute over whether they truly were independent. Anyway, whether or not they are independent, I really don't like the implication that an abundance of technical evidence that you are not editors A, B, C, and D means that you're more likely to be editor E. -Amarkov moo! 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you that my RfCU was independant. So independant that MONGO disagreed with my conclusion as did Aude. That notwithstanding, the implication you have drawn is incorrect. When 5 different people say you edit like five different banned disruptors, the single linking factor is "banned disruptors". You can argue about the technical factors, but the theme of disruption that triggered the CU request is common. --DHeyward 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another theme that was common in the checkuser requests was that they were filed by users who were, to varying degrees, in content disputes with SoD. Two requests were made by The Evil Spartan, one by Aude, and one by DHeyward (Tbeatty at the time). All had voted on the opposite side of SoD at a heated AfD debate (where he first came to everyone's attention). Aude and MONGO were disputing with SoD on a World Trade Center article. DHeyward and MONGO were disputing with him at the US State Terrorism article. Aude acknowledged in the checkuser request that s/he regularly worked with MONGO on articles, and DHeyward and MONGO also often edited the same articles/talk pages and expressed similar points of view. Though MONGO did not request any of the checkusers, he commented on two of them and made specific accusations against SoD on one. Although I agree that there is no real cabal at work here, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that all of these check user requests were filed completely independent of one another, as though four editors who had nothing to do with each other interacted with SoD in four different parts of the encyclopedia and came to the conclusion that he was a sock. Most of the folks who were suspicious of SoD and were involved in these checkusers work together on articles with some frequency and share similar points of view. Nothing wrong with that of course but I think it is relevant to point that out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be a "cabal" as such, but there is a clique, a group of editors who support one another and cover for one another's incivility and other transgressions, and gang up on anybody who gets in their way. *Dan T.* 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

SevenOfDiamonds[edit]

1) The Committee notes that SevenOfDiamonds remains a user in good standing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, I want to see evidence of current disruptive editing. (I probably just don't have the patience to try to figure out if the sockpuppeting evidence presented by MONGO makes sense, but there you go). Fred Bauder 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fred Bauder: If you are bored by the case, then don't arbitrate it...simple as that. I didn't(and surely SevenOfDiamonds didn't) want this case brought to arbitration...I took less evidence to arbitration enforcement, where the admins there were split between either agreeing that Diamonds was ban evader NuclerUmpf and those that felt the evidence was not conclusive. So no block was made...the discussion was closed. Diamonds made a few comments about me at AN/I, I responded, and Theresa Knott decided that she would open this case to allow the Arbcom to decide whether Diamonds is a sock account of banned editor Nuclear..simple as that. So, I searched for more evidence, posted it here, and here we are. Theresa said that if Diamonds isn't found to be a sock account, then myself and others need to stop accusing him of such, and I agreed with that in my opening statement on this case. The fact that previous checkusers came back as undoable due to stale IP's is not material here...why do you think so many checkusers were requested if numerous editors didn't see Diamonds as a possible ban evader? Is it some conspiracy?...hardly. I have had zero interaction with Diamonds in a couple of weeks now...and regardless of the outcome of this case, intended to keep it that way....if I can...for evidence (that you seem to have ignored?) about his wikistalking has been posted here. Bottom line is to examine my evidence, render a decison and that is about it. How hard is that? If the evidence is not compelling or you are not interested, then don't participate...if it is overwhelming, then act...if it isn't convincing then act...geez.--MONGO 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did. I tried going to AN/I to complain about you calling me a sockpuppet at every location I edited. I tried asking your friend Tom to ask you not to do it. It got me nowhere. This is my last venue at peace, and a chance to just edit. I noted this before, prior to all of this, your accusations, your hounding of me, your name calling, I was able to create 11 articles, ones I believe turned out pretty nice and with help from some other editors I was able to greatly expand others. Since this proceeding began, I have been unable to even edit. I spend the time I could be editing, attempting to defend myself against a group of people compiling evidence that I am someone else. Evidence that consists of trivialities, evidence that in some cases is not even accurate, or is being manipulated. I welcome Arbcom to look over your evidence, and then look over mine. To see how often "typo" is used as an edit summary, to see you accusing others of being sockpuppets, oddly two of them people you bumped into on the same article as myself, to see you misstate Nuclears edit in an attempt to connect him to Latin American issues. Your glossing over edit time spikes etc. I have said all I will and I trust Arbcom will examine this from all angles they see fit and fairly. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, slightly amended from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that SevenOfDiamonds has been disruptive. Catchpole 07:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the evidence that he is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user? Picaroon (t) 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the evidence that he isn't? Viridae^Talk 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was based on there being "...no evidence presented to suggest that SevenOfDiamonds has been disruptive." However, evidence has been presented that SOD is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, which would certainly be considered disruptive. That doesn't mean there's proof that SOD is a sockpuppet, but it's not accurate to state that evidence hasn't been presented. Chaz ^Beckett 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence posted doesn't show disruption. The sockpuppet allegations are very weak.Catchpole 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence has been presented of disruptive sockpuppetry. If the sockpuppetry allegations are true, such behavior would be considered extremely disruptive. I personally find this evidence to be quite compelling. But my opinion (or yours) of the evidence is irrelevant, because the point is that evidence of disruption has been presented. Chaz ^Beckett 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To more directly address this proposal, it's impossible to make any judgement on SOD's standing until a finding is made on the sockpuppet evidence. If the allegations are found to be true, SOD would obviously not be in good standing. If the ArbCom finds them to be weak, it's much more likely he'd be considered in good standing. Chaz ^Beckett 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for anyone involved in an ArbCom case. He is in good standing until the opposite is decided by ArbCom. Standard stuff to clarify the current situation and scope of this case. MartinDK 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt that SOD is a sockpuppet, we shall assume good faith. Melsaran (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO prohibited from harassing Six/SevenOfDiamonds[edit]

2) MONGO is prohibited from harassing Six/SevenOfDiamonds

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, adapted from the COFS case. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Melsaran (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nobody should be harrassing anybody. *Dan T.* 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six/SevenOfDiamonds prohibited from harassing MONGO[edit]

3) Six/SevenOfDiamonds is prohibited from harassing MONGO

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Also proposed, again adapted from the COFS case, but unlikes Anynobody and Justanother, there's evidence of it going both ways. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahm... both this and the one above seem pretty self-evident. I would hope that we could agree that harrassment is prohibited regardless of who is involved. What's next? Do we also need to explicitly state that incivility is bad? I hardly think ArbCom accepted this case to state the obvious. MartinDK 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But arbcom can actually enforce it, via blocks and the like. Kwsn(Ni!) 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But wouldn't it be better for ArbCom to warn them both and make the consequenses of baiting each other more explicit? MartinDK 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See proposed enforcement. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Melsaran (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nobody should be harrassing anybody. *Dan T.* 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO[edit]

4) The Committee notes that MONGO remains a user in good standing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just to keep it even and highlight that this one is a two way street. --Rocksanddirt 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support and add to this that the Committee should also acknowledge the substantial high quality work that MONGO has done as an editor. He is not the Prince of Darkness as some would like to portray him - he is just easily drawn into disputes that he for the most part didn't cause to begin with. MartinDK 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, this goes for both SOD and MONGO, an editor may make the best mainspace contribs ever, but a total dick when it comes to discussing them. Just because someone does great work does not always reflect on their behavior. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling anyone a "dick" on an arbcom case? That will go far towards presenting an argument.--MONGO 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a general statement, he isn't calling someone a dick, nor presenting an argument. stop attacking people. Kwsn is just providing generic principles for Arbcom to consider. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't attacking anyone...just pointing out that referring (even indirectly) to editors as dicks is not helpful in these situations.--MONGO 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sighs* This exactly why I proposed the two things above this, you two are at each other's throats non-stop. Anyway, MONGO, the reasoning behind the use of the term "dick" stems from the essay don't be a dick, which seems to be not happening a lot around these parts. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was not necessary and it can go both ways. Introducing such commentary is not helpful in the least and as can seen, if the entire essay is read, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly".--MONGO 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm not sure what the point of this is. If Arbcom finds that the allegations of harassment and incivility are groundless, then this is obvious (much more so than in 7OD's case), and if they are not groundless, then he isn't really a user in good standing. -Amarkov moo! 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is just a counter to the above regarding myself. This way no one has to feel overly defensive. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It just clarifies the current situation prior to any ruling by ArbCom. MartinDK 15:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be potentially useful to adopt if remedy #1 is adopted, to keep the sides even, but not otherwise. MONGO is a very experienced editor and this case is primarily about SevenOfDiamonds, so it would be a little weird to say "MONGO remains a user in good standing". Melsaran (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO is placed on personal attack parole[edit]

5) MONGO is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure how that can be taken from a prior decision...no remedy or decision was made that I was either incivil or had been engaging in personal attacks. Me think Bigtiomepeace has an axe to grind here due to content disputes he and I have had in the past. People should not be using arbitration cases to settle scores.--MONGO 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as my original wording was somewhat unclear. I did not mean to imply that I was proposing the remedy as a continuation of a prior ArbCom ruling related to MONGO. I was simply borrowing language from an earlier decision with which MONGO was involved, though in that ruling the language about personal attack parole was applied to a different editor (I've adjusted my comment below accordingly and hope that clears up any confusion).

As far as axes go I never really grind or even use them, be they real or metaphorical. I think MONGO is an excellent editor who has made far more contributions to this encyclopedia than I ever will. We have disputed over content in the past, and during these disputes and on other occasions I have watched MONGO lapse into incivility far more often than ought to be excusable. MONGO is very capable of being civil and indeed is most of the time, but in my opinion he has a real problem remaining civil with users with whom he disagrees. As a result a great deal of (unnecessary and distracting) drama often follows. I think placing MONGO on incivility parole (assuming he is found to have been incivil by ArbCom) would force him to think twice about posting ill-advised personal comments which distract us from the real work we are supposed to be doing and which he generally does so well. It's not at all an attempt to settle a score (please assume good faith with me here MONGO) or to punish him, rather I think it would reduce conflict and help to avoid confrontations like the one between MONGO and SoD (for which, incidentally, I feel both parties are at least partially to blame).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have 36000 edits to the project, so I am sure I have not always been civil all the times, and am probably less likely to be so when I am dealing with obvious reincarnations of banned editors or people who are neverendingly trolling me. I do question when those who have had content disputes with me show up to post proposals as you have in cases they have no involvement in. I think that is a reflection on you, not I. I suggest you assume good faith of me as well.--MONGO 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment to this case before it was ever accepted by the committee and have commented in this workshop (prior even to making this proposal) precisely because I have interacted extensively with you and with SoD. I think some involvement of users who have interacted with you in the past (be they in general agreement or disagreement with you) is to be expected in these kind of cases, so I guess I'm not sure why it reflects poorly on me that I'm here. I certainly will assume good faith with you MONGO (I'm not sure if you are referring to something specific by bringing that up--I only mentioned good faith because you seemed to be assuming I was posting here to settle a score). In any case, this is obviously merely a proposed remedy--I'm only making a suggestion that, to me at least, seems like a good way to deal with some problems brought up in this case. If it's as bad an idea as you seem to think then I'm sure ArbCom will reject it and that will be the end of it. I'm going to leave it there for now as I think I've explained my thinking on this well enough and am more interested in the opinions of other parties.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, the text for this remedy is taken from a prior decision with which MONGO was involved (though in that decision the remedy did not apply to MONGO but rather another user--I'm simply borrowing the wording). I'm assuming that this is a standard remedy for a user whom the ArbCom has found to be persistently uncivil. Obviously this remedy would be applicable if and only if the committee agreed with proposed finding of fact number 8, that MONGO had been uncivil to Six of Diamonds and other users.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. this is a clear attempt to get an uppper hand in a content dispute. MONGO has 36000 edits and there is nothing a parole witll do. He is simply a prolific editor that is victimized in proportion to his edits by trolling. --DHeyward 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you go from claiming there is no WP:CABAL, then state an Arbcom proceeding is really a dastardly attempt to get the upper hand in a content dispute? Please try not to get into ad hominem arguments. This Arbcom is about myself and MONGO. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it really so hard for anyone to believe that someone might disagree with MONGO's actions without an ulterior motive? -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Appearantly it is. I do disagree with SoD's statement that this is about he and Mongo. The results of this will go along way towards defining what is acceptable behavior from the 'olde tyme' editors. And that is much broader. --Rocksanddirt 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MONGO is often incivil (see also [47]), but I'm not entirely sure that adopting this remedy would be a good idea, because he also gets trolled a lot and that will surely increase if he is placed on parole. Melsaran (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to DHeyward above, let me state categorically that this proposal is not "a clear attempt to get an upper hand in a content dispute" and I'm disappointed that he would assume that was the case. The only content dispute of any significance that MONGO and I (and DHeyward) have been involved with is at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. This article has been fully protected for almost two months so no one has been editing it. I basically stopped editing the article just over a week prior to its protection. Although I'm sure I'll check in there from time to time, I'm not particularly interested in working on the article when it comes off protection. In any case, I find the idea that being on civility parole would affect one's ability to participate in a content dispute or to edit articles in general rather odd. So long as MONGO remained civil while on parole (which, again, is not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do) he would have no problems and would be just as capable as everyone else of participating in/commenting on articles which are contentious. I don't want MONGO to stop working on controversial articles, I just want him to remain civil when he does.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SevenOfDiamonds is banned as a sock of a banned editor.[edit]

6) SevenOfDiamonds is found to be a violating WP:SOCK and is banned as sockpuppet of a banned editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the proper finding, assuming that he is indeed a sock, is "SevenOfDiamons is banned as a sockpuppet of X". His behavior is not disruptive enough to make it clear that he's a banned user, lacking connections with a specific one. -Amarkov moo! 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Amarkov. Obviously we should have this as a possible remedy if SoD is found to be a sock, but "a banned editor" should be replaced with "NuclearUmpf."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SevenOfDiamonds is a disruptive editor and is placed on probation for disruption.[edit]

7) SevenOfDiamonds is found to be disruptive and may be blocked up to 1 week for disruptive behavior at the discretion of any neutral admin. --03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, oppose because I don't think he's been all that disruptive. -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The issue here is whether SOD is a sockpuppet of someone, not whether he is "disruptive". Placing him on probation or civility parole or something similar isn't supported by the evidence or FoFs. Melsaran (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he's not disruptive enough for that. --Rocksanddirt 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of his disruption would have to be shown in order for this to apply (I don't really see a proposed finding of fact to which this remedy applies), and a block time of one week is far too harsh--24 or 48 hours is more like it. In any case, I assume this remedy would be pursued only if SoD was found not to be a sockpuppet, as if he is deemed to be Nuclear he would presumably be banned outright, thus making this remedy rather irrelevant.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All parties[edit]

8) All parties, arbitrators, clerks, and the community at large are condemned to perpetual arbitration of this with no resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not disrupt ArbCom workshop pages with irrelevant commentary presented as a "proposed remedy" to illustrate a point. This can be posted on the relevant talk pages. Melsaran (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree, Melsaran is correct. --Rocksanddirt 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though I think there's enough turmoil in this case without making accusations of WP:POINT violations for half-serious proposals made nearly 3 weeks ago. Chaz ^Beckett 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Six/SevenOfDiamonds and MONGO[edit]

1) Should either Six/SevenOfDiamonds or MONGO violate the prohibition on harassment, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, adapted from the COFS case. If the severity of the blocks should be altered, just say so. I should have added this when I put the harassment bans up. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may need to spell out what entails the specifics of leaving each other alone. Many of the items that both point to as harrassment or stalking might not be taken that way if I posted them in response to one of their posts. --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about telling them not to bait each other? MartinDK 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing. Though if you check threads all over about them, there are people who tell them both that, repeatedly. It might be that they need a 24hr or 48hr reminder sometimes. a crude tool, but that's all we really have. --Rocksanddirt 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose equal punishment for a throw-away sockpuppet account and an editor with 36000 edits. Harassment isn't defined and I suspect the trolling on MONGO will increase exponentially with this potential threat, including admins who will be rushing to get to 5 as well as other admins unblocking. There are current procedures in place for harassment that are adequate for all editors without a special one being created. --DHeyward 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that SoD is a throw-a-way sockpuppet and I'll reconsider. Also, this is for only between the two of them, not between MONGO and say me for example (meaning, if MONGO harasses me, he can't be blocked under this, also, no offense to MONGO with that example). Kwsn(Ni!) 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway for me to state DHeyward is Tbeatty without having to repeatedly mention it whenever they post? A person I have a conflict with apparently, though MONGO has not shown me to have one with them ... Here they are, as I stated, always defending MONGO. I do not mind that, it is good to have friends, however TBeatty, you should be listed as a party if anything. Also please try not to refer to me as a sockpuppet, throw away? I have written 11 articles, I have rewritten 4 others. I am far from some sockpuppet here to damage the project. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Shared_edit_times[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Uh, what's this supposed to show MONGO? I'm sure there's hundreds of other New Yorkers that have the same edit times. Personally, that graph doesn't match up quite well with the written description of the edit times. And the three major dips coincide with times people eat (and sleep). Kwsn(Ni!) 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried pointing this out but was ignored. I believe numerous other editors tried to explain to him what he has graphed is the day time of the East Coast. That further he gives no explanation for the dips. I addressed it on my evidence page. He ignores the dip in the morning, the later start time in the afternoon, Nuclears rising without dips etc. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at only one piece of my evidence, you have nothing...the evidence that Diamonds is ban evader Nuclear is based the compilation of evidence, not just one small part of it.--MONGO 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kwsn that the edits times don't really prove anything. Editing times are mainly used for determining location and it's already been established that SOD is from New York. However, I do agree with MONGO that the evidence should be viewed as the sum of its parts. Chaz ^Beckett 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have to look at all the evidence, but why include such a circumstancial piece of evidence, more so as the first piece presented. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the editing time evidence doesn't prove anything. In fact, I'd suggest removing this piece of evidence or moving it to a "supplemental" section. The evidence doesn't help the case, and removing it wouldn't hurt since SOD's location doesn't seem to be in dispute. Chaz ^Beckett 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peaks and valleys in that chart line up excellently within the expected parameters of the same editor who has used two different accounts. There is no way they would likely be exact, but within the limitations we have to do this kind of in depth sock checking in lieu of checkuser, I can't see how it can be more obvious that we have the same editor here. I guess, since I am the one being wikistalked and have watched this guy have an exchange with people and then follow them to new pages repeatedly to further argue with them, I know I am probably more familiar with his editing style than anyone else on this site. I really do have much better things to do than spend the exhaustive time I have compiling the evidence and I wouldn't be doing it unless I was positive we were dealing with a ban evader.--MONGO 15:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine. Drop at 7:30, does not occur for Nuclear. Large dip at 3:30 in Nuclear, not mine (may signify elementary to high school user). Nuclear peaks at 9:30PM before falling off sharply, mine at 7PM. Nuclear has no drops in editing all the way up to 9AM. Not to mention the fact everyone but MONGO will admit, what he has charted, if we are going to ignore the peaks and falls, is the day time in NYC. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current graph isn't particularly effective in comparing the editing pattern, because of the difference in number of edits by each of the target users. It would make more sense to graph the percentage of each of the target user's edits that occurred during each one-hour period. That would provide a more statistically valid comparison. MONGO, if you still have the raw data that you used for creating this graph (i.e., number of edits per hour slot for each target user), I would be willing to draft up such a graph. I won't venture to guess what the graph would look like when prepared. Risker 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are limitations to such graphs because people's schedules change, affecting their times to edit over time. I don't have the raw data anymore. The evidence needs to be looked at in it's preponderance, not in it's individual pieces...but I appreciate the offer.--MONGO 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More confirmation bias. SO no matter what the editing times, of course your graph would some how show it is me. You would just chalk up the lack of similarities in peaks and dips as a change in schedule? As I noted, this is a classic case of Mortons Demon. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts in edit times[edit]

1. Evidence related to time of editing:

   1. Most of MONGO's evidence revolves around the time of day both me and Nuclear edit, which corresponds to the day time of the entire east coast.
   2. MONGO ignores that Nuclear's editing never drops in the morning
   3. MONGO ignores that my editing drops at 7AM since that is when myself and most of NYC leaves for work. New Yorkers typically leave between 7-8AM to get to work at 9AM, which is why the period is called "rush hour," and known all over the world for it.
   4. MONGO ignores in his own chart that my editing peaks 2 hours before Nuclears since this is when I typically get home, living further away from Nuclear I would suppose, my train ride would take longer, if like most of NYC we both left work at 5PM.

Analysis: From reviewing the editing times I would think Nuclear attends school, most likely still in High School or earlier grade. Most New York children do not travel far to school, which would account for the editing never dropping in the morning, little to no travel time. This would also account for Nuclears largest drop to occur at 3PM, typical time students are let out of class in New York city for the day.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accoding to RocksandDirt's comment earlier [48], you moved recently. That could explain why you and Nuclear have longer differing travel times. Sasha Callahan 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved about a year ago with my daughter when my wife and I split. If I am not mistaken, Nuclear was still editing during that period. Also I moved further from the city, not closer, the time to get to work would go up, not down. Bay Ridge is 2 neighborhoods further from Park Slope, which I never lived in in the first place. Just to add, if you look at the chart, there is no dip at all, which is why I made the analysis I did, its not that there is a short one, just none at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Userpage_setup[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

And how many other people in the project have similar pages to that? Kwsn(Ni!) 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kswn, this is fishing/confirmation bias. Many users have a list of articles they created on their userpage. Melsaran (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could trim down the less conclusive items, but again, the evidence is a sum of its parts in totality.--MONGO 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Comment_removal[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This evidence is incredibly weak--quite frankly I don't think it shows anything at all. MONGO provides diffs for a number of occasions where SoD removed warnings on his talk page (3RR, wikistalking, etc.) from MONGO and Tom Harrison. He then provides one diff showing Nuclear removing a comment Tom made on his talk page, and another showing Nuclear removing a comment from the User:Hipocrite (the second diff does not involve MONGO or Tom so I don't know why it's there). The evidence provided is so thin that I don't think we can conclude that "comment removal" of a certain type is a shared behavior of SoD and NU. I think this particular evidence is indicative of an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach being used by MONGO. This approach arguably makes his evidence less effective, and it would perhaps be better to remove some of this highly unconvincing stuff and only keep the material that is particularly relevant and persuasive. The idea that the evidence must be taken as a whole--with which I agree--does not preclude us from looking at individual sections as well and noting that they are weak and that including them is therefore probably a mistake.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Shared_phrases[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Probably the most damning pieces, especially the use of "XYZ" (and its variants) and the use of the phrase "go play somewhere". Both are rather unusual,IMHO. Sasha Callahan 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never considered "XYZ" to be that damning, I wish SOPHIA could do a search for how often letters are used to represent unknown variables. They stated it turned up too much junk, however I doubt if a search could be done, variables would not as rare as people think. As for go play somewhere, its a pretty popular saying, in fact 1/3 of all "go play somewhere" sentences on google do not end in the word "else." However my search on Wikipedia showed a significantly lower percentage, something I cannot really defend against I guess, if its seen as so damning. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Conflicts[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Its interesting that SoD has found himself in conflict with the same users (well only the active ones), that Nuclear got into conflicts with. SoD has also not been able (to my knowledge) explain why this is (not why the conflicts took place, but why the same people). Sasha Callahan 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is active, and 7OD has no conflict with him. In addition, the evidence of conflict with Tbeatty is limited to an article talk page, that with Tom Harrison limited to one removal of a comment on the 6OD user talk, and the only conflict he has with Aude is related to allegations that he was conspiring off-wiki with MONGO. They do both have a conflict with MONGO, but so do many many others. -Amarkov moo! 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Arthur Rubin is active too. -Amarkov moo! 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I highlight on my evidence page the interactions I have had with Tom, I never thought of myself in conflict with him. I have helped him with sections and discussed additions he has made to the article. Until MONGO started saying it, I thought myself and Tom had a good editorial relationship. As for Tbeatty, I am not sure why MONGO keeps saying I have a problem with them, I told them their definition of terrorism was not appropriate for the article. As for Aude, well I just asked them not to discuss me off-wiki, or to come to me if they want to discuss something. My "conflict" with MONGO primarily revolves around their constant need to insult me, refer to me as a "waste of time", a "sockpuppet" and other less then civil ways. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated Conflicts[edit]

• Interactions with Tom Tarrison:
  1. [49] Asking Tom for assistance when MONGO vandalized my talk page.
  2. [50] Complimenting Tom even though he refused to take action against MONGO for the vandalism.
  3. [51] [52] Discussing an edit Tom made and how to improve it.
  4. [53] Discussing another edit Tom made and an alternate meaning to a passage he cited.
  5. [54] Explaining to Tom how Amazon.com book reading works. I pointed him the correct location of a citation.
  6. [55] Commending Tom for his edits and being a positive contributor to the allegations page even though he argued for deletion.
• Noted as having a conflict with TBeatty. I have actually rarely interacted with this user as previously noted. They tend to come to MONGO's aid whenever someone is stating MONGO has been uncivil. The sole dif is simply me telling TBeatty that their personal definition of what constitutes terrorism is not applicable to the article in question. There does not seem to be much of a conflict here.
• The "conflict" with Aude is me questioning them on MONGO's statement that they had passed judgment on me regarding if I was a sockpuppet.[56] The dif is included where MONGO name drops some people who apparently agree with them. I could not find any on-wiki discussion of it, so I made Aude aware that they should have discussed the accusation with me, and further that off-wiki discussions lack transparency.[57] MONGO actually removed this post from Aude's talk page after I made it with the summary "rvv," my guess is the last v is for vandalism?[58] The next statement takes place 3 days after MONGO stated Aude passed judgement on me, it is made to Tom, and explains to Tom the RFCU's and accusations were being used to harass me.[59] Tom took no action regarding my statement.

• Analysis: MONGO has fabricated "conflicts" with these users in order to make a connection with Nuclear, even though no actual conflicts exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you remove his admin comments/warnings made to you on your page three times.13:05, 28 June 2007, 13:17, 28 June 2007, 20:06, 2 July 2007...he was only doing his "job" as an admin.--MONGO 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand warnings are not permanent. The first is made after you already filed 3RR and the summary reads "Your information has been read, however a report has already been filed. Thank you for commenting."[60] Further as I got to know Tom I felt he was a prolific editor and a rather good contributor to that particular article. However it is obvious they are also your friend, before interacting with them to a further extent on an article I had a sour feeling of them. After they left the message I went to their talk page and yours, and seen the interactions on other articles as well, seemed to be a bad choice for Tom to engage me considering their friendship with you. However I took this to be an advantage, first if we both look to Tom he could defuse situations, such as when you vandalized my talk page, I looked to Tom to defuse it. Further as noted above as time went on I seen Tom to be the only one advocating deletion of the "state terrorism" page who was actually attempting to contribute content and discuss without the goal of their discussion to be the removal of the article. Which is all noted above. Here is a question, did you purposely ignore that I have had nothing but good interactions with Tom since the earliest postings? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of his comments and mine from your talkpage is atypical since you do not generally remove such comments. Your edit summaries did not indicate you were interested in heeding the warnings and advice of this administrator and do not indicate to me that you were on "friendly terms" with him.--MONGO 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question please. Or do not attempt to question me further, its a give / take situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me provide an answer anyway, the difs you provided are from prior to my interactions with Tom in a positive manner, probably why all my difs take place after yours. As my comments notes, at first I felt it was a little COI'ish for them to be leaving warnings in an official capacity, as I got to know them however and examine the situation that changed. You did not read the statement I wrote at all it seems, or examine the evidence presented in the difs either if you are to ask that question. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence#Changes_username_after_corrective_action[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Also interesting, especially when considerring the body of evidence as a whole. Sasha Callahan 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note here that, unlike 7OD, NuclearUmpf did not initially make the creation of a new account public. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly I was told he did by Chaz. So this is quite odd. Just to note if you view my evidence, I actually changed my name for MONGO. He constantly told me I could not post from an IP, even though I made it clear on the IP page, and signed as myself. You can see it also in the rebuttal page of his "WP:CIVIL" evidence. He is telling me I have to post via a username or I will be seen as a "waste of time." Since I did not remember the password, I made a similar account name and continued to use that both at home and at work. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly dammning evidence - its not as if the account names are wildly dissimilar. In fact if you were going to reply on that as evidence, I would have to say it speaks more in SOD's favour than against it. Viridae^Talk 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae hits it right on the head. Having names that similar shows to me he got locked out (like User:Anyeverybody and User:Anynobody). Kwsn(Ni!) 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change[edit]

• MONGO was aware SevenOfDiamonds posted from that particular address.[61]
• MONGO insisted Seven post under a username, calling him a "waste of time" if he was going to continue to post under an IP.[62]
• Seven stated he could not login from home.[63]
• The previous username and new one are nearly identical and no attempt to hide or evade was made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Confirmation bias[edit]

The evidence presented by MONGO has been shown to be chosen with confirmation bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think this needs to be a separate finding. The ArbCom is experienced enough to realize that any evidence is subject to bias. The focus of the case is the sockpuppet allegation, not the neutrality of the evidence. Chaz ^Beckett 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Arbcom who accepted the case stated the issue was not me being a sockpuppet but the actions of all involved. Further whenever examining evidence one should look at not just neutrality, but at method. MONGO or anyone could be a neutral party looking for evidence, however the process they take is what leads to a bias in the results. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet allegation isn't the only issue in this case, but it's certainly the most central. Put simply, if the ArbCom finds you to be a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf, I'd guess they wouldn't be too hard on MONGO. If they found the evidence to be weak and the allegation to be frivolous, sanctions against MONGO would be much more likely. Again, the ArbCom is used to dealing with bias, especially when the evidence in question has been provided by one of the parties. Chaz ^Beckett 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the harrassment of SoD is as big a part of the case as the allegations of sockpuppetry. --Rocksanddirt 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this alleged "harassment" is based on the belief that SOD is a sockpuppet of a banned user. A finding on whether SOD is actually a sockpuppet is central to the case. Chaz ^Beckett 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree putting the allegation to rest is a major part. I would hope harassment would not be seen as ok. If such faulty evidence was to be taken as fact. WP:CIVIL does not have any loopholes that I read, such as "If after 5 other accusations you finally are able to convince someone, its not longer a violation of WP:CIVIL." --SevenOfDiamonds 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chaz that the sockpuppet allegation is central to the case--indeed it should be the first thing the ArbCom deals with. However, as I noted in my original comment before this case was accepted, even if ArbCom concludes that SoD is a sock (I am unsure either way) I would hope that that would not preclude them from investigating MONGO's behavior toward SoD in order to determine if it constitutes harassment The arguments that SoD is a sock and that MONGO was engaging in harassment are not mutually exclusive--one or the other, both, or neither might be true.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. The alternative to confirmation bias is declaring anything that is different at all about two users evidence that they are not sockpuppetry. The issue is the level of similarity; any halfway intelligent sockpuppeteer will try to act slightly differently. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when compiling evidence for proof, you are suppose to attempt to rule out things you found to be true. Which would have lead to MONGO seeing that I do often wikilink policy, do spell consensus correctly many times, do spell separate correctly many times as well. He would have noted the flaws in his own time graph of editing etc. Stating that a sockpuppet would act differently and using common terms and typos is all the evidence needed, you can connect anyone, seeing as their views, politics, interests etc do not have to be in line with the other person, just they both use the edit summary "typos." Interesting theory, but you can read the confirmation bias article to see why it is flawed methodology when attempting to prove something. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your underlying point here; after looking over some discussions I hadn't seen, he does seem to be refusing to even consider any evidence which would falsify his hypothesis of you being a sockpuppet. -Amarkov moo! 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from finding of fact section. Picaroon (t) 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So what's all this really going to get us? --Rocksanddirt 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that SevenOfDiamonds has left the building. MartinDK 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Rocksanddirt...that was my question too. I have stated repeatedly that I brought my evidence ( with less details than I have now) to arbcom enforcement. There, no consensus was achieved to block Diamonds. I intended to drop the issue and walk away from it because of two reasons...firstly, I don't do forum shopping, secondly, banned editors can always return and we end up right back where we started. It would be great if ban evaders did return, move on to new horizons and eventually become well respected contributors to this encyclopedia. However, most of them don't...they resume where they left off, arguing with the people they had a previous beef with. Those that understand the limitations of checkuser can sit back and laugh at those that file such requests since it won't be "provable" via checkuser that they are the same editor. Regardless, I had also stated that if the arbcom found no connection between Diamonds and Nuclear, I would make a formal and public apology to him, and avoid him as much as possible from that point forward.--MONGO 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but it also seems that both of you cannot just let it be. If you really wanted to you could have let your evidence stand alone, maybe made some findings of fact and such, but instead you have discussed with SoD nearly everything to death. He's done exactly the same. I think if both of you had posted your evidence, some workshop items, and not discussed anything there would be no question that this would be closed with a reminder to both of you to play nice and that would be it. You could make your appology (if you wanted to) and move on. But that has not happened. Both of you have been posting continuously to this hearing since it opened, it does not appear as if either of you really want peaceful resolution. Hopefully, you'll be happy that it's over now with SoDs withdrawl from WP. --Rocksanddirt 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a finding by the ArbCom on the sockpuppet allegations. Either the ArbCom believes there's enough evidence to block SOD as a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf or they don't. I personally find it to be quite compelling and don't want a situation where SOD returns in the future with the sockpuppet allegation unresolved. Just examine the evidence and end it one way or another. Chaz ^Beckett 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a finding would be needed, though we might not get one. I don't find the evidence that SoD is NulearUmpf, or anyone else for that matter, compelling. --Rocksanddirt 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am leaving I have reinstated my evidence and do want Arbcom to rule, because I may look back at what I created and the people who have since expanded on those articles, and want to return editing in some capacity, probably anonymous, however only if Arbcom permits. I also believe it is important to expose the way I have been treated while here and do not want the past 2 weeks I spent countering such information to go to waste. I ask Arbcom to move forward with their hearing and rule on the situation in all aspects as the case was accepted. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]