Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Proposed decisions by Kirill

They seem fair to me. Viridae ^Talk 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, boiled down a lot of stuff into just a few phrases. --Rocksanddirt 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they look fine and seem to be acceptable to all parties. Melsaran (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have a vote I am sure. But I find it appropriate as it assures equal protection for both myself and MONGO from each of our perceived issues. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he a sockpuppet of then?

Question directed at FloNight, you said "Obvious was a sockpuppet. Getting the who wrong is the aim of the sock. Seems clear to me now who it is." Who is it then? (this is Kwsn on a lab computer from my school, not going to log in here. I'll verify when I get back to my normal computer if needed.) 137.104.170.8 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented alleges that he's a sockpuppet of User:NuclearUmpf. Chaz ^Beckett 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same people also allege that Rex is also Nuclear, and myself at that, and Checkuser stated Rex and Zer0 were not the same person. Interesting, like I state, everything but the kitchen sink, even if none of it makes sense. How can I be Rex and Nuclear and zer0 and not be Rex? More questions than answers it seems, but no one seems to care. Also Flonight ignoring that all of the RFCU's were filed by MONGO's admitted information is a bit odd. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand that, but the way she worded it gives me the impression it could be someone other than Nuke. All I'm asking for is confirmation here. 137.104.170.8 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just in. I am even more people apparently. [1] --SevenOfDiamonds 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more people: GATXER, Ipankonin. I wonder who else. The total list for those not keeping score: Gaxter, Ipankonin, Lovelight, Rex, zer0, Nuclear, Giovanni, Bmedley Sutler, Fairness, Rootology.--SevenOfDiamonds 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It came back as unrelated. SoD is NOT may not be Nuke or zer0 Kwsn(Ni!) 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be correct (I'll pretend I haven't made up my mind), but your reasoning is flawed. Both of those accounts are too old to be checkusered. Picaroon (t) 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the established IP that nuke and zer0 used was also included in the request, the CU may have checked that. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have records as far back as when Nuclear or Zer0 last edited. The "unrelated" means that GAXTER and the other one are unrelated to SevenOfDiamonds. Due to technical limitations, there can't be any conclusions found with checkuser, re: SevenOfDiamonds and Nuclear/Zer0. --Aude (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, simply looking at GAXTER and the other listed user's contributions, to me they are obviously unrelated. Much different editing behavior. IMHO, checkuser really was not needed to determine that. But, I didn't want to interfere with this RFCU. --Aude (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP was provided that you seem to be ignoring. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that SOD is Nuclear/Zero, it's extremely unlikely he would have continued using the same IP. SOD has already demonstrated he's knowledgeable about IP addresses in NYC and therefore wouldn't use an IP that had been previously used by Nuclear. The point is that the CheckUser results are virtually useless in proving or disproving any link between SOD and Nuclear/Zero. At a minimum, they absolutely do not support your statement that "SoD is NOT Nuke or zer0. Chaz ^Beckett 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to know you are still ignoring that zer0 was found not to be Rex, yet the people accusing me of being zer0 also accuse me of being rex. That leaves a bit of an issue, does it not? Just to further note, if there was an IP as noted that did belong to zer0, then the information that has been lacking has been provided and checked. Dismissal of this is not to be taken lightly. So what are we talking about here? IP does not match, no big deal, topics do not match, no big deal, interests do not match, who cares, behavior does not match, its ok we do not need that either. They both edit in NYC ... they both misspell words sometimes. It is good to know the indepth research into the topic. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To remove speculation laid out above. Time Warner does not let you choose your IP, it is provided via DHCP. I would not have any control over which IP is assigned to me. Stating I would not use any IP that was used by Nuclear, would insinuate its even in the control of the person the IP was assigned to. Which it is not. Please do not make incorrect statements if you are not aware of basic networking issues. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) ok, fine, I retract my statement. Also, you don't chose your IP unless you spoof it, and to spoof it constantly is sort of, weird. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spoofed IP also does not trace back, you can have Arbcom/Checkuser people ping my IP as they please. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would also most likely haev access to my OS type and would be able to see I am not a linux user, you cannot spoof in windows correctly in windows to a server responding directly to you for information, or else the information would never get back to your correct PC. Its only good for one way communication. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the explanation is much simpler than IP spoofing. SOD mentioned that he recently moved [2] and your IP will obviously change if you switch locations or ISPs. Chaz ^Beckett 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the IP shown does not resolve to a state code. Very interesting, because all New York IP's do. Like I keep saying, if you are not aware of actual networking related issues, you really should not be attempting to thrown stones anywhere, at least ask, do not make false assumptions. I find it interesting you believe I moved, yet you do not believe anything else. I guess only accepting the parts that make you right is useful. I wonder what they call that? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite experienced with networking, thank you. What does it matter if the IP resolves to a state code. The topic was you changing IPs, so please don't starting dancing around the issue. Did you actually move? Or were you lying about this, just as you had previously lied about providing your former IP? Chaz ^Beckett 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all RR IP's resolve to a state code, ones in NYC at least. Then the IP presented by zer0 may not have even been from NYC. This game of accepting A and B from a sentence and not C is obsurd. You believe zero was a liar and a bad person, yet you believe everything he said, perhaps he was never in NYC? He did edit an article on Philadelphia, one of the most highly edited articles that he did edit.

Did I move? yes a year ago, as I have stated already. Now here is your flaw pay attention to this part. zero live in NYC, Nuclear live in NYC, I live in NYC, this is what is being stated as facts. Since we all live in NYC, the IP's would resolve to our state code. zer0's did not resolve to the state code, we do not know Nuclears, and mine does ... So if we know Roadrunner tags NYC IP's by region and we are all in the region, why are not all the IP's tagged? Something for you to consider, one of the top edited articles by zero? Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network ... Philadelphia? Perhaps the person you are chasing after did not live in NYC, or moved out of New York City. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're employing the Chewbacca defense? Chaz ^Beckett 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the chewbaca defense!!! All hail Star Wars, when you learn about how IP's work and can have a civil conversation let me know. Until then stop making accusations where you have no clue what you are talking about. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses do rotate on DHCP. I would also advise people to read Wikipedia:Civility and try and act maturely. Whether someone is a sockpuppet or not is not only determined by IP evidence, but behavioural evidence too, as one checkuser has said. --Solumeiras ^talk 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, apparently its nonsense to prove that a NYC editor would have NYC IP. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? Are you now claiming that you aren't from NYC or Nuclear isn't from NYC? Can you please clarify your statement. Chaz ^Beckett 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am stating zero, who we have an IP of, was not in NYC, if that was the IP, its not tagged by region like all RoadRunner IP's. Your statement it's extremely unlikely he would have continued using the same IP Is also ignorant as its not technically possible. Again, if you are not aware of topic or issue, you should not participate in the discussion. As noted above DHCP is random assignment of a pool of IP's. It would be pretty much out of my control to pick an IP. Here is a question for you, tell me how I can be nuclear and zero and rex, if rex is not zero? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - NuclearUmpf is Zero, that's a confirmed fact. Once again, I have more than enough knowledge of networks and IPs. I fail to understand why you consider it technically impossible to switch to another service provider, which would be allocated a different range of IPs. I have no idea why you're mentioning Rex since I've never mentioned him. I'd consider him to be completely irrelevant to this case. Chaz ^Beckett 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not even reading the evidence before commenting. The ISP is the same. At this point I am ignoring you, you seem to be here to get me irate as you are not even reading things before commenting, your in depth analysis of the IP with your knowledge of networks seemed to have missed that its the same ISP, just not the same region. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in England, where I'm from just because you live in a certain place doesn't mean your IP comes from there: I know of Blueyonder (now Virgin Media) customers who have had an IP in one town, but theirs comes from miles away (e.g. a customer in Sheffield has an IP coming from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for instance.

SevenOfDiamonds, your statement regarding the IPs is correct. RoadRunner, Comcast and Verizon all have IP allocations similar to this.

This is all from a technical standpoint, and I hope I've explained it well enough.

Anyway, arguing about it isn't going to help anyone. Take a deep breath and calm down. There's no need for argy-bargy. --Solumeiras ^talk 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regard to the IP spoofing issue, look through the talk archives of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, you will see it is not possible to spoof an IP on MediaWiki. Hope this helps. --Solumeiras ^talk 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, my apologies if I was getting a little upset. It seems Chaz was not even examining the IP before arguing over the merits of my statement. I also appreciate you inputting your own knowledge into the situation so it does not seem like I am pulling the information out of thin air. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I've helped here. I'm only trying to help. As for my own knowledge, well, I've got qualifications in IT and networking.

People should read WP:CALM before trying to argue with other editors here. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really needs to end. However, it would be nice if MONGO was given credit for not actually being involved in these checkuser requests. I'm beginning to think that a number of people who weren't named as parties in this case should have been. Telling SevenOfDiamonds to stay away from MONGO will help MONGO, I'm not sure that telling MONGO to stay away from SevenOfDiamonds is going to help him that much given the number of people who continue to fish for sockpuppeteers without MONGO's involvement. Having said that, MONGO would benefit greatly from ignoring SevenOfDiamonds, especially if that means no more baiting of MONGO by anyone with an axe to grind. EconomicsGuy 13:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that MONGO already admitted to proposing the people for the CheckUser. He just did not file it himself. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so but he didn't file them himself. I'm not convinced that telling MONGO to stay away from you is going to stop the checkuser requests. Those who filed them haven't been named as parties in this case. This is where the no fishing at checkuser principle comes in. EconomicsGuy 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its not fishing if other people file them for you? I do not think that is correct. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in those checkusers was almost zero. I knew Diamonds was a sock account of "a" banned editor very early...it just took time to figure out which one. The checkusers were not a process of elimination, and again, for the last time, my involvement in them was almost zero. If the arbitrators can't see what my evidence presents, then they either have a poor ability to ID sock accounts, or I presented my evidence poorly. Frankly, I really don't care anymore.--MONGO 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what it means

I noticed that flonight only voted on the one proposal about sockpupettry. Does she intend to vote on any other proposals and just hasn't decided yet? or does she intend to stay with the one, because if it passes everything else is moot? not important really, just a question. --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they have to think about it, sometimes they just forget. Thatcher131 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who gets dibs?

So if MONGO and SevenofDiamonds are not allowed to comment or interact with one another, do they have to not edit the same articles? Who gets dibs of articles they have both edited in the past? Thatcher131 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some liberty taken, like if they're both editing nicely and not reverting each other on the same article, I think no one would really care. Just what I think anyway. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly...I already said that the only involvement I intended to have with Diamonds was on this case. When he showed up at the attack sites arbitration case, I stopped contributing to it...seems a shame I have to evade him, but if that is the best thing for Wikipedia, no biggie...the arbcom has already moved on to the proposed principles there anyway.--MONGO 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely avoided responding to your comments. However its a case that involves the entire community hence I did not feel I should be barred from it. While it has not been "approved" yet, I figured I should start not responding to you as soon as possible. Its a shame if you feel you cannot participate in an article without responding directly to me. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sort of sense of comradery with SoD over this, since we were both named in the same RFCU. We should start up our own cabal. <joke> If he wants to edit something with MONGO, he can tag me, and I'll come flying in and edit war like the dickens!</joke> Isaac Pankonin 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagueness

SevenOfDiamonds and MONGO each accuse the other of harassment. Both are correct to some degree.

This sounds incredibly vague. Can this be reworded on how specifically each one is correct to some degree? hbdragon88 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the workshop page, evidence talk page, and the various AN and ANI threads you will see that neither one can refrain from commenting on the others comments. It's not so much vague, as being more specific is not really possible. They gently harass each other pretty much constantly. --Rocksanddirt 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history between the two I think this is entirely sufficient and appropriate. There is no reason for ArbCom to examine every instance of alleged harrassment. That would take months for ArbCom to properly examine and we need to remember that they are doing this in their spare time, not full time. Rocksanddirt sums it up very nicely. EconomicsGuy 13:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latest proposed decisions

It was my understanding that falsaff unblocked SoD, as the consensus was not achieved to block him as a sock at that time. Not, soley to participate in this proceeding. --Rocksanddirt 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Perhaps Fred can expand on his wording. Just to add he also apologized for going against the established concensus, the user went to him did not mention the Arbitration Enforcement page where it was already decided there was no concensus. Fayassal also did not unblock me so I can participate here, he did so because he went against consensus. He then told MONGO if he wanted to keep up accusing he would have to file an Arbcom. MONGo refused and Theresa then filed. The proposed finding of fact, is not fact at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the phrase "he has been unblocked to participate in this arbitration" is actually not true it obviously needs to be reworded. Not a big deal, except that it's a bad idea to have findings of fact in an ArbCom which are demonstrably false. A committee member needs to fix that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just got distracted by other things. Fred Bauder 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Random Observation

User:Zer0faults doesn't appear to actually be blocked from editing. The last block in the log was lifted in June of 06. While the user hasn't contributed since Sept. 06. Nuclearumpf however is blocked. It seems a bit odd. --Rocksanddirt 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearUmpf is Zer0faults...when he created the Nuclear username, he redirected his Zer0faults account to the new username [3].--MONGO 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got it, thanks!. I just looked at the block logs. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job well done

This is directed at MONGO et al. However all feel free to hop on board. I have decided to quit participating here. It seems Wikipedia is a grand social experiment and mirrors a real democratic system closely. Who you have on your side, weighs more then the actual events. I have been accused of harassing you, however you have not been able to note a single time when I made a comment or remark to you without you having had made one against me first. Second it seems your ally on the "Bad Sites" issue has come to your rescue, someone who already admitted to not having read the evidence, or having the time to do so. I am accepting the label of "sockpuppet" to please the community and will enjoy my exile. If anything it will only give you more ammo and this project will hopefully collapse on itself, or realize the errors of its ways and see you for what many believe you are, you will now have topics of Latin America / 9.11 / South East Asia as your mixing pot to label others as socks. This will be my last edit, and I request the article I created be deleted under G7. The following pages meet this requirement:

To those who seen the paper thin evidence for what it was, thank you. For those who accepted the line "its the total of the evidence" every time MONGO was proven to be lying or misstating, I really can not express my distaste and disappointment at what you have taken away from the project by asking me to leave. My final words to you MONGO, I hope your victory over the "other POV" as you called it when you were looking for people to accuse me of, is well worth it. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rescue? Funny...there was no rescue when they desysopped me. I have never sought a "victory" and I have repeatedly stated that when commentators at arbcom enforcement saw no reason to block you, I intended to drop it...this case was opened by someone else, and I have avoided you otherwise. As far as someone not looking at the evidence, as you claim Bauder hasn't apparently, ElC, an editor I have a lot of respect for, never looked over my evidence either and yet was opposed to having you blocked at arbcom enforcement since he thought there had been too much phishing....you'll have to do what is best for you.--MONGO 05:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad that you've again made this decision. However, as others have edited the articles you refer to, a G7 speedy deletion is unlikely to be applicable. My advice is to simply ignore this proceeding, unwatchlist it. In another month, after the arbitors have looked at the reams of commentary they will decide for the harassment restriction on both of you, and that will be the end of it. --Rocksanddirt 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since I am the only one who "provided the page's only substantial content" I can request G7. I did not pick all of my articles as some were expanded thanks to Fernando and others who care about the Latin America topics. However the edits to those pages either never stood or are just wikilinks. I am sorry I made the decision as well, however I do not like the atmosphere here anymore, it is too political. Someone participating in my Arbcom, Fred, proposed findings of fact that were not true. They are also an ally of MONGO on another Arbitration and here sided with them as well. They have also stated they did not read the evidence nor cared to. The politics surrounding editing Wikipedia is too much to deal with. In the first month here I wrote 5 articles I believe, since this Arbcom took off I have not been able to start the narco-state article I wanted to, nor help Fernando on the narco-trafficking article. If I am going to be looked at as a sockpuppet, if politics will continue to be more important then editing and contributing, then I have no desire to remain. I thought the goal of this project was noble, but the people who participate often think they are bigger then that goal sadly. Thank you for your kind words and rational thinking, no matter which side of the divide you ended up taking. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zer0faults account blocked

User:NuclearUmpf was indefinitely blocked in February, but the User:Zer0faults was not blocked at the time. He came back today and left a message on User:MONGO's talk page, including harassment of User:DHeyward. [4] To prevent further disruption, I have indef blocked Zer0faults. --Aude (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made no edits for a year. Fred Bauder 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at his deleted contributions. And please see my note a few lines down. --Aude (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really think I was making it up when I said "He came back today and left a message on User:MONGO's talk page"? That concerns me. --Aude (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't realize the edit was deleted. Fred Bauder 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The content of the edit was not okay to leave in the history. --Aude (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean you blocked me? You do believe we are the same person after all. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Zero makes his first edit in over a year mere hours after you declare you're leaving Wikipedia forever. I've got to play the lottery tonight. Chaz ^Beckett 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Hey wait that means I am zer0!, you are good. As I said, I already accept the block as a sockpuppet. The community here is amusing. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Diff has been deleted from the page history due to harrassment. I'll leave everything else up to arbcom. --Aude (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds, stop trying to go down in a blaze of martyrdom. I actually thought you were doing a better job getting along in the community, but this is dumb. The Evil Spartan 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. There is no martyrdom. Believe it or not ... I am not zer0/Nuclear/LoveLight/Rex/Giovanni/Fairness/ or whoever is needed to make others feel better. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is, I never had an issue with TBeatty, she comes to MONGO's defense, but we do not even edit the same articles. I guess I can say that til I am blue in the face however. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just confessed to it above. I'm done feeding this nonsense. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was sarcasm ... I give up. So it is good you give up. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm never comes through when people don't like you. --Rocksanddirt 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious everyone has made up their mind, which is why I accept the inevitable. I want to stick around and watch the branding and the following excommunication. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think everyone except most of the arbitors have made up thier minds. Some think you are the devil, some don't. --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that now that we have recent activity from the Zer0faults account, a CheckUser should be possible against SevenOfDiamonds. If it turns out to be an IP match, then the case can be instantly resolved. Arbs? - Merzbow 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the most recent edit from Zero did not use the same IP as SOD. SOD has already demonstrated that he has knowledge of IP addresses allocation and probably would have made the Zero edit from somewhere (library, university, cafe) he doesn't usually edit from. Chaz ^Beckett 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that would be said, which is why I argued against the latest RFCU. However I am sure Arbcom can check to see the IP I used while posting here today while I was at work and that one. There is an ace in my pocket that you all do not know that Arbcom with checkuser does, and that is where I work. Which is also why I am perplexed at Fred's vote. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Fred B is going off the pattern information as is flonight. For those inclined to see disruption and arguementation as sockpuppets it is a clear cut case. For those not so inclined, it's not so clear. --Rocksanddirt 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite ban: what's the point?

I oppose an indefinite ban on ZF/NU/Diamonds. He was already indefinitely blocked, yet here we are.

I've viewed a lot of his contributions, and arrived at the opinion that many of his contributions are reasoned and productive. The problems are 1) harassing MONGO and 2) lying about his identity and falsely accusing others of being liars. If the first stops, and the second is retracted, the problem is solved.

The fact that banning him won't solve is apparent from this very proceeding and everything that led up to it - all he has to do is sock and lie. Nothing we say here will prevent anyone from asking, "AGF/How do you really know/can't act until everyone is 100% certain." Banning him leaves him no reason not to do so, as it seems probable he will.

What is lacking in almost all these cases is any attempt to specify what we actually want from people who want to contribute and are capable of positive contributions. Diamonds is one such person.

I propose that Diamonds be reinstated without prejudice, or sanction of any kind, besides an absolute prohibition on the disputed behavior - harassing MONGO. This should be conditional on ZF/NU/Diamonds giving a candid confession of how he manipulated the system and the community to embroil MONGO in controversy. The community - and particularly those who stood in the way of consensus re the identification - badly needs to hear how this occurs from a source that both sides of the debate will accept as authoritative. I invite MONGO along with arbitrators to consider if this result might not be more productive than a ban. Only if these conditions are rejected is an indefinite ban appropriate.Proabivouac 03:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The implication behind such a confession would be that that MONGO is only controversial because of people who manipulate the system against him. And that is certainly not the case. -Amarkov moo! 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are just saying he is the sock of an indefinitely banned user. We are not ratifying the ban. It remains a community ban, which could be appealed or reversed. Fred Bauder 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'm confused. If you "are not ratifying the ban," then why is one of the proposed remedies (which you supported) "As a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, SevenOfDiamonds is subject to the indefinite ban"? Could you clarify?

I think Proabivouac's proposal is actually interesting, and if SoD is indeed ZF/NU perhaps he should consider taking that route--assuming the committee and/or community would agree to it. The part I have a problem with, which Amarkov alludes to, is the "candid confession of how he manipulated the system and the community to embroil MONGO in controversy". A candid confession of how he gamed the system sounds good to me if he is really a sock. But even if SoD made an effort to "embroil MONGO in controversy," I would not want one outcome of this ArbCom case to be that MONGO is absolved of any incivility to SoD (and others) simply because SoD is a sock. I think the evidence clearly suggests otherwise, and as such SoD does not need to explain how he "tricked" MONGO into --SevenOfDiamonds 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)acting in a controversial manner--which is what Proabivouac's proposal above implies as I read it--rather he would simply have to admit that he is a sock and explain how he gamed the system (and cease from interacting with MONGO in any fashion). The MONGO vs. SoD (and vice versa) harassment/incivility issue is a completely separate one which the committee is apparently not planning on addressing all that directly, but if it's going to be essentially ignored I think that at the least MONGO's behavior ought not be excused (nor SoD's if he was uncivil--but there's no risk of that under Proabivouac's proposal).[reply]

Otherwise I think Proabivouac's suggestion is worthy of consideration, though it may be a bit late in the game at this point, and it's perhaps doubtful that SoD would accept. Whatever the case, it seems undeniable that SoD has made some good contributions, so if a means could be found to allow him to continue to do that while dealing with all of the other issues that might be a good thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a ratification or endorsement of the ban, that is a statement of policy - socks of banned users may be blocked. A ratification of the ban would be a remedy to that end. Picaroon (t) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to wonder the point of this now. I have had several of these "olive branches" handed to me recently including an email with an apology that I will not post, if you care to, please speak up. I am not Nuclear, I am not sure how to further prove that. I have already shown counters to all of the evidence presented. MONGO has already stated he had a hand in all the Checkusers, up to the point where he made the confession, by picking people with similar PoV's that were banned. It is no surprise that after 5 to 6 people one was able to stick. If the community is willing to accept a lie as a confession, then I will give one to continue being able to contribute, however I cannot tell you I am who I am not, nor will I continue to edit if I am to be branded as someone I am not. Wikipedia will need to take a deep look at itself if it finds 2 commonly misspelled words, two which I often do spell correctly as noted in my counter evidence and apparently ignored, as proof that I am another user.

I have demonstrated the following that is all ignored:

I do not share the same interests as Nuclear, he edited Middle Eastern/Asian terrorism topics, I edit articles on South America, primarily Colombia where my family is from.
I do not share the same editing pattern in terms of time, spikes and drops do not match and are simply ignored when shown.
Words I am being labeled as misspelling, I have shown numerous times I spelled them correctly, proving its not even consistent.
The idea of not linking policy was also shown to be false.
All of MONGO's evidence of my harassing them is preceded with an attack on me. Fred ignores this however even though I have shown it through difs, and even though MONGO defaced my talk page.
MONGO lied or over exaggerated the "conflicts" I have with other editors in a weak attempt to link me to Nuclear. I showed that I asked Aude for information and even apologized in advance if what MONGO stated was false. MONGO lists this as a "conflict."
IP related evidence has been presented and I have shown the likely hood of a two users from New York IP's editing the same article topic (9/11), unfortunately I had to dig through an external website to get this information and it only includes a small sampling of only the last 3 months.
zer0 has had two IP's, a previous one supplied, and apparently a new one, used as evidence in Checkuser against mine and it has come back false both times.
I do not edit from New York City when I work. Arbcom knows this, so they know the recent IP presented in the Checkuser could not be me posting, further it could not be remote computing since I have RoadRunner at home, not Verizon. Fred has known this all along since he has Checkuser, which is what makes me annoyed at his vote. He knows this whole thing has been a sham.

I will not give the vocal minority here the pleasure of having me hang myself because they do not want to be the ones to do it. I am not a sockpuppet, I will not plead guilty to being one. I have had my privacy violated now in over 6 RFCU's and have had to expose my home IP, my neighborhood, and where I work, in order to defend myself, including oddly, what time I leave for work and come home. The same people here ready to cast stones are arguing elsewhere on the need to protect participants privacy while mine is being violated repeatedly with not a single concern. You want to hang me, then get the noose, I will not confess to what is not true. You want to ignore how I have been treated by MONGO, then that is your decision, you want to chase off a contributing editor, which everyone is so worried about outside sites doing, yet you are doing it here. I have created numerous articles and to be insulted while doing it, and the community to sanction such activity is abhorrent. I am removing this page from my watch list as numerous people have recommended as it is just a magnet for more stress. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose removing the community ban of NU/ZF. His continual lies and attempts to identify me in the real world are troubling. --DHeyward 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Diamond's ongoing lies about me admitting I had a hand in the checkusers...facts are a lot of other editors saw this one as a disruptive reincarnation. SPADE, Diamonds says he's leaving and all of a sudden, out of the blue, Zer0faults, who has not edited in a year, shows up at my talkpage...now Diamonds is back...sure. It's sooooo hard to go down the block and hit a hotspot with your laptop off Starbucks or similar to evade a checkuser determination.--MONGO 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here your problem. The IP was from another state. As I stated Arbcom has my IP they know where I work, which is why I continue to find this absurd. Just to add Starbucks uses TeamMobile to transmit their network I believe, which I do not believe goes through Verizon, someone feel free to correct if I am wrong. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example, Diamonds...an example.--MONGO 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But one that makes no sense. I am sure I walked down the block and somehow crossed a river. Further "My direct involvement in those checkusers was minimal. I suggested a number of others who had similar POV's"[5] Who were those people you suggested. I asked you before and you refuse to answer. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember...I think long ago when you first started arguing with the same editors you had previously that you were an likely ban evader, but it wasn't until I started looking at your contributions and style that I realized which one.--MONGO 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. So you thought I was 5 or more other people and cannot remember a single one. You suggested a number of other users with similar PoV's, and you are saying none of them match any of the checked people? --SevenOfDiamonds 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone likes to look at coincidences, lets examine one. MONGO has stated he "checked" me against 5 other people, and the people all had similar PoV's as mine. I was check user'd against Giovanni33, Bmedley, Fairness, LoveLight, Rootology. How many of these people had similar PoV's as my own? The accusation later came that I was Rex, so that would total 5 from the friends of MONGO side, including the fact that Aude admitted filing the RFCU on your information. All just a coincidence. Interestingly I proved that I do not have the same PoV as Nuclear since he wanted the Allegations article deleted, you say that is not proof of anything, yet PoV is what led you to pick him in the first place. What other coincidences can we find? Other then the Allegations article I have not interacted with Tbeatty, yet she filed a RFCU. I had reverted Aude once, yet they filed a RFCU, I do not edit any article with Evil Spartan, yet he filed 3 RFCU's. So MONGO, the only one I had a conflict with, did not file any, yet thought I was 5 people, I was checked against 5. And they are all people who interact with MONGO, one stating they filed their's off MONGOs accusations. Just more coincidences. I think Chaz brought up Occam's Razor. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to top it all off, MONGO has now forgotten the names of any of the people he thought I was. Even though its in this very case, remember ... Fairness and Rootology? I am sure you were not fishing, apparently you accused me of being someone and forgot shortly after who it was. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever...yes, checked...not checkusered...you keep confusing these issues. As far as checked, I'm talking about a brief examination. I wouldn't have bothered to do so at all if you didn't raise red flags right off the bat. You think my evidence collection was done for fun or some kind of vengeance, you are gravely mistaken.--MONGO 17:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure its a coincidence, care to name those people? --SevenOfDiamonds 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why Zer0faults magically appeared on my talkpage after not editing for a year and after you proclaimed you were leaving. Yes, I did a brief check on you against some other editors who were also problematic in the past...so did other editors...must be a conspiracy that so many other editprs did this...oh wait, that's right, I must be their sockmaster!? Frankly, I don't care if they end up banning you or not, but I do hope they get this case done before Christmas.--MONGO 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering questions with questions, a sign of a liar. You also dodged the question. Who were those editors. Again your dramatics only serve to show you are lying, you dramatize the expected result to down play it. No one is stating you are a puppetmaster, however I suspect you asked them to place the RFCU's and they did, or they were suspicious and you gave them the name to file against. You already stated this, you proposed the people. Just keep denying it in such vague terms, I think everyone gets the picture. The real surprise would be if I left forever and zero started posting again, not the fact that I did not stay away for the third time I have said I was quitting. I am sure his resurgence has nothing to do with the genius posting above that he can login still, nope we have the razor stating its most likely I hacked a pentagon terminal in another state, or walked across a river real quick to post on my super secret sock account. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not notice, like the last 5 attempts at a RFCU, I tried to not have it done, since I am tired of my privacy being violated at this point. It is quite amusing how much I have had to reveal to prove this is false, when Arbcom could have ended this long ago by seeing where I work. It is not even in NYC. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If zerofaults reappeared why does he not have any new posts in his contribution log? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Aude did a history deletion of that edit and then blocked the account. I am not a liar and I am tired of your ongoing misrepresentations about my involvement in the checkusers. If you cannot provide evidence that I did the things you claim, then I suggest you not dig your hole any deeper.--MONGO 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I have no evidence: "My direct involvement in those checkusers was minimal. I suggested a number of others who had similar POV's"[6] and your refusal or just coincidental forgetting of all the people you thought I was. That and filing RFCU's because two people have similar PoV's is fishing. Oddly, we actually do not have the same PoV. But your words, not mine. You cannot even refrain from calling me a sock on this page. Disgusting. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Does anyone read any of the evidence. Flonight just wrote it is not harassment to discuss with someone if they are violating their parole. MONGO did not discuss anything with me, he accused me, then followed me around calling me a sockpuppet and troll. What is the point of evidence, if no one is reading it?

They also stated there was enough evidence for a CU. Odd there was no evidence presented in 4 of them, how does no evidence constitute enough evidence. They also all came back false.

Here is another good one, they stated I was disruptive enough to draw others attention, then ignore that one of the people who posted a check user already admitted they did it solely off MONGO. One of them I did not edit articles with, they filed 3 of them, which is pretty odd. The last one I had one interaction with telling them their opinion is not a valid measure of the definition of terrorism. The best part, noone has posted any disruptive evidence that was not preceded with MONGO attacking me. Since this proceeding is just a joke and no one is taking it serious I have am again quitting. To those who posted kind words telling me I should wait, I see no point with people not even taking the time to read through what is presented, yes FloNight, I am sure you read it numerous times, however since you obviously did not read my counter-evidence, you really did not read much. Thank you all for wasting my time. I hope everyone is happy with their protection of MONGO to the point where its not even harassment to call me a "troll" and refer to me as a sockpuppet on every article I post on. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for you, that I've alluded to but not made specific. I suggest that you don't comment on every single thing in this arbcomm. It hurts the case that you are being harrassed. Arbcom's will read and see what they want to. I think it is instructive that only three have voted on this and it's been open for voting for at least two weeks. I think most havn't made up thier minds. Your comments become whineing after a bit, and that hurts your case. I happen to agree with you, but I'm not an 'olde tyme' valued contributor, who is going to get the benifit of the doubt no matter what. --Rocksanddirt 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaay.

Once again, we've managed to completely ignore any discussion of MONGO's incivility in its own right. It's much more convenient, and less controversial, if we just blame it on the people who harass him. After all, it's a well established principle that people may only be sanctioned once nobody does anything bad to them, and they continue in their behavior...

...oh wait, no it isn't. -Amarkov moo! 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it has been clearly established that based on the definitions used in wikipedia, and arbitrated to a farethewell, MONGO by definition is not incivil. So it would serve no purpose to review his conduct, it is appropriate. </poor sarcasm> --Rocksanddirt 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your facination is with this particular case...to my knowledge, we have not once encountered each other anywhere on this website...unless you used to edit with a different username.--MONGO 09:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the accusations. Viridae ^Talk 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never encountered mongo during the normal course of editing. But I started reading the admin noticeboard and AN/incidents, and some of the arbcom cases when I first started waste more time on wikipedia, and Mongo came up in a number of contexts. I found it quite interesting the response to issues around mongo (and "abusive" old timers in general) and tried to read the back story (by no means a complete review), then the foolish ness with SoD started and like a trainwreck or a telenovela it's darn hard to turn away. --Rocksanddirt 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see...foolishness eh? Well, surely, if you look at my userpage, my motivations are generally not geared towards dealing with ban evaders...I definitely have better things to do, like write and enhance articles. I just find it odd that you claim you belong to a couple of projects, yet rarely seem to make any edits to articles that those projects encompass. If you have a geology or similar background, then Wikipedia needs editors like you to work on such things. I have a similar background and have created numerous articles on mountains and glaciers...why not join the effort there?--MONGO 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am member of at least one wikiproject that I rarely make edits to - does that make em a sockpuppet too MONGO? Viridae ^Talk 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...does it?--MONGO 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one making the strawman argument in the first place, so perhaps you shoudl clarify that point. Go on, checkuser me to find how many sockpuppets I have stashed under my belt, all editing abusively. Because of course, because I occasionally look at ED and participate in discussion on WR and *gasp* don't like your attitude I must be a sockpuppet. Add to that the basically zero participation in subjects I claim to be trained in and wow, I must be a sockpuppet. Perhaps that is why I am being so brazen about it, trying to lead you a reverse psychology situation... Viridae ^Talk 02:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that works out for you.--MONGO 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion doesn't exactly reflect well on anyone. Can we ditch the pettyness, please? If anyone has any accusation they'd like to make, make it. Don't tie yourself up in your own words by trying to hint at things. Picaroon (t) 03:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is really very simple...if you aren't on Wikipedia to write and enhance articles, then you are simply wasting your time. There are thousands of blogs to go bicker with people.--MONGO 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. That doesn't mean that people must not ever deal with others they think are problematic, and in fact, doing so may very well enhance the encyclopedia. -Amarkov moo! 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I find to be most problematic over time are the ones who are not here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that on average before this dramatic bit you subjected me to, I was writing more articles per week then you. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there an actual purpose with this thread or was it just to stir the shit, piss off MONGO and create more drama? EconomicsGuy 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is quite clear. Viridae ^Talk 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any surprise yet another person who does not see things as MONGO is being accused of being a sockpuppet. I do not understand how this is allowed to continue, its character assassination and wreaks of McCarthyism. Be careful Viridae you will soon have RFCU's filed by people who do not edit articles in common with you, then of course comes the typo evidence. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice...I didn't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry except you...if you and others have read it otherwise, then that wasn't the intention, of course.--MONGO 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted [7] For two people who do not know each other in real life, she sure does protect you a lot. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just proves that there are still some people around these parts who know when administrators are simply looking for a reason to settle odd scores.--MONGO 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name an admin who does not agree with you that has spoken out that does not? Even better, please explain why they have an axe to grind against you. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status

What's the status of this case? No arb has edited the proposed decision page in almost two weeks (17:04, 3 October 2007 FloNight). I suppose there might be some discussion on the private ArbCom mailing list, but that's just a guess. Chaz ^Beckett 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously..can we put this to bed...it really doesn't matter if he is or is not banned for ban evasion...he'll just create a new username anyway and all this has been a monumental waste of time overall. It has turned into a pissing match anyway...so best to get it over with one way or the other...no one "wins"...as I mentioned, if he is banned, he'll return anyway under a new username as he has done more than once before.--MONGO 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time its true, reality did change because you said it again. Apparently it did not. You have wasted a considerable amount of my time and left me with quite a negative feeling regarding this project. Your witch hunt here where you avoid questions when asked, scream sockpuppet when put in a corner, is comparable to the Salem Witch Trials. Just keep screaming "sock" until someone screams it as well, like Chaz above. Ask questions with no right answers, then demand an answer. So, you are you a good witch or a bad witch? How about this one; What are the hallmarks of your witch alter ego? Like the Salem Witch Trials you attack anyone who defends the accused "witch", because they also must be a witch, or demon, or have an axe to grind, or also be a sock. The logic that has permeated this "trial" and the resulting dramatics. For someone who has repeatedly said they did not care about the result, you continue to watch list this page and comment on it, asking for it to be hurried even though you feel there is no end, someone is not being truthful about their level of interest. You claim I came here to harass you as the resurrection of a past ban evader, ignoring I was writing more articles than you. Someone later claimed zerofault came back to post and declared my innocence, however I received an email of what I believe is the post and it has nothing to do with this Arbitration.

So when you get a chance, please provide the names of those 5 people you assumed I was and checked me against. You can also answer the post above, you made an accusation against Viridae, please state why they have this axe you keep mentioning. You can also set the record straight to what you were eluding to above, do you think Rocksanddirt is a sock?

Keep screaming witch, it worked in Salem. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eluding to?[8]Proabivouac 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really so ignorant you never heard of the Salem Witch trials? What were you banned for again? tenditious editing? --SevenOfDiamonds 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenditious editing?[9]Proabivouac 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]