From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

Statement by Theresa Knott

Seven of Diamonds first appeared as Six of Diamonds on the 11th July. Since that time he has been accused of being the sockpuppet of a number of different banned users, some of whom are indefinitely banned. Most accusations have been in the form of checkuser requests:

But there have also been some quips on the incident noticeboard in the seemingly never ending threads on the matter.

On the 16th August MONGO posted an evidence page that SevenOfDiamonds was banned user NuclearUmpf to the Arbitration enforcement and a discussion followed. [1] I reviewed the evidence and felt it was pretty strong. I was close to blocking but User:El C felt that because of the number of previous check user cases that Seven of Diamonds was being harassed there was possible phishing going on and objected. The case was therefore closed by a clerk with the statement that it needs to go to you guys. Later on I learned that El C hadn't actually looked at the evidence page before objecting.

Later that evening another admin blocked SevenofDiamonds as a sock [2]. This caused yet another post on the admin noticeboard [3] The objection was that the block was out of process because the clerk had said it must go to Arbitration. The blocking admin therefore unblocked.

That is basically it (I've missed out some minor details to keep the request short) So far, as far as I can tell, all objections have been process ones rather than people who have looked and the evidence and stated it was not strong enough. What I would like you to do is look at the evidence (we can tidy it up for you if you accept the case) and make a binding decision on this. SevenofDiamonds is either a sockpuppet of a banned user who we can block as such, or he is a new user in good standing in which case all those saying otherwise need to shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by MONGO

Up front...I admit that I have no problem with ban evaders returning to work on articles so long as they don't resume doing the same things and arguing with the same editors that got them banned to begin with. I already spent a lot of hours off and on over the last month checking the diffs and information that I have posted in my userspace...at User:MONGO/Ban evasion. I could look for more, but frankly I am tired of this...I figure this is all a bit of a game anyway...he (as can almost anyone) can return and recreate a new account...the only way to detect if it is him if checkuser is stale is by tracking the diffs and cross examining them. As Theresa Knott has said, if SevenOfDiamonds is not found to be NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults, then I will issue a formal apology to SevenOfDiamonds and shut up. Do I believe the evidence is solid proof these are the same editor? Absolutely.-- MONGO 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

As an addendum, I asked User:RyanFreisling here to look over my evidence page since she was convinced for a long time that User:Rex071404 (see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 and two other arbcom cases naming him) was user NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults. I remembered her making these comments multiple times, so I did ask her to look over my evidence page to see if the editing style she saw there reminded her of Rex. There are many examples of Ryan discussing this matter... such as this one...so my basis for making comments to such effect was due to my knowledge that Ryan is not someone that would make accusations of sockpuppetry just for the sake of doing so, and neither am I, but I have not examined any diffs that might connect Rex to Diamonds at all, and won't.-- MONGO 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dtobias's comments below are preposterous, as are most that he makes about me to the mailing list. It is normal, as far as I know, to assemble diffs and evidence for checkuser requests, Rfc's and arbcom in one's own userspace...if this isn't the case, then why isn't he addressing the fact that SevenOfDiamonds is doing the exact same thing.-- MONGO 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:SevenOfDiamonds

I am not Nuclear, I have not harassed anyone either. MONGO follows me around, he calls me names, he brings up his accusations on any page I particpate on. He went into a rant even on a RfA page attacking me.

Evidence presented consists of "both users say Thank you," "Both users edit in the same timezone," "They both live in the same city," (along with 2.5 million others) "they both edit at the same time," (as much of the east coast)

Differences ignored by MONGO that are obvious:

  1. Nuclear stated he lives in Park Slope brooklyn according to MONGO. I live in BayRidge which is about 3 miles away and large difference in income.
  2. MONGO states both of us live in Park Slope because of a RDNS. RDNS based on location goes to the trunk of the ISP. The trunk is located in Sunset Park, which lies between BayRidge and Park Slope, anyone living in Brooklyn knows this place because it is where you pick up your cable box.
  3. Other than 9/11 articles and the "allegations" article, our topics have nothing in common. In fact if you look at pages I create and actively edit, you can see I mainly "argue" on 9/11 pages not actually edit them directly.
  4. My topic of interest is Latin American studies. The articles I create and edit are on these topics, something not in common with Nuclear.
  5. MONGO attempts to link the two by an edit Nuclear made to the "allegations" page where he added a section on Guatemala, a country I am not familiar with as I am only interested in countries with dictatorship and corrupt governments in Latin America. I have never actually edited a page on Guatemala.
  6. MONGO stated Nuclear never wikilinks policy, then provides difs of him not doing it. Ignoring of course the times he did, in less than a minute I managed to find examples: [4] [5].
  7. I also do wikilink policy at times: [6] [7] [8] [9]
  8. When Nuclear left according to MONGO, he stated he already had a new account, this was in February. I have not edited with an account until SixOfDiamonds was made. MONGO ignores this fact as well.
  9. Nuclear left threatening to cause disruption, of which if you check my block log I have not. Other than constantly having to defend myself against MONGO and his friends in RFCU's and AN/I posts, some of them not even users I have edited articles alongside.
  10. I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year under various IP's and under two different ISP's. What MONGO categorizes as my first edit, is not, it is just the last one that can be tracked due to my use of it after registering an account.
  11. MONGO's proof of us being the same is that we both mispell "commonly misspelled words." The key being they are common for a reason.
  12. MONGO repeatedly has stated I started an RfC against him. This is false and if it can be undeleted it can be proven. The RfC in question was brought to my attention by a post on my talk page. After having had MONGO threaten me on my talk page with "stop or else," "I will have you blocked," and repeated accusations of being a sockpuppet, as well as vandalizing my talk page.
  13. 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. MONGO however ignores that Nuclear's editing never drops, ignoring that my editing does 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.
  14. MONGO also ignores in his own chart that my editing does not peak until 2 hours after 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. It actually does not even look like Nuclear works since there is never a drop in his editing, it just rises until lunch then tapers off afterwards, as if there is no travel time.
  15. MONGO states that both myself and Nuclear have removed posts from him and Tom, then provides difs of only me removing his posts. This is for two reasons, I have had nothing but good interactions with Tom, or so I thought, and because MONGO failed to mention the posts I removed are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and attacking me, if you look at what he actually wrote that was removed.
  16. MONGO states I always misspell "consensus" as "concensus." While I am sure I have my typos I have actually corrected the spelling of someone else and spelled it correctly myself. [10]
  17. In response to Aude. As I noted in the arbitration page, my hostility toward them was due to MONGO stating they had already passed jugement on me, and felt I was a sockpuppet. I asked them about this, and they did not deny it, I then asked them not to present themselves as a neutral person.
  18. Aude later filed a RFCU against me based on MONGO's accusations.
  19. Aude believed the evidence presented proved I was Rootology and Fairness.
  20. Theresa Knott is noted as stating the evidence presented by TBeatty proved I was Lovelight. Only retracting after noticing it was already declared stale.

To give some history, my interaction with MONGO began after MONGO appeared on my talk page attempting to bully me into submission over an AfD he lost, I started to watch his edits. I did not make any malicious edits on pages he participated, but I would involve myself in some debates if I knew of the topic and seen MONGO attempting to bully someone. Much like he did when he followed Giovanni to the Hiroshima page just to revert him, a page he never edited before then and only appeared an hour after Giovanni edited it, Tom appeared shortly after Giovanni reverted MONGO, of course to then revert Giovanni.

I am sure after the hunt ends I will soon by hunted down again for being user:rex another person MONGO has taken to accusing me of. This new accusation started on the Arbitration page after some did not agree with MONGO. I enjoy editing Wikipedia but these games of politics are making it dificult and are becoming quite annoying. I have had my privacy violated in a fishing expedition as I was claimed to be 5 other users, and now gearing up a 6th when this one fails, alleging I am a user named rex.

If this Arbitration is not going to look at MONGO as well as myself, then it is bias. These accusations come from "evidence" MONGO has cherry picked, and based on his intent to drive me from Wikipedia, having accused me of being four other users now, rex, Rootology, Fairness and now Nuclear / zero. -- SevenOfDiamonds 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Amendment: I just want to add that Proabivouac, a user I have had no interaction with, who has only recently appeared only to constant confirm MONGO's statements, has stated MONGO always believed before accusing me of being anyone else, that I was Nuclear. However MONGO himself has stated that this is not the case, that he in fact believed I was Rootology and Fairness, which is why he presented evidence to Aude as such and then Aude filed their false RFCU. MONGO stated he only started believing I was Nuclear last month, which I would like to point, when he stated that he was still accusing me of being Rootology if you look at the date of that RFCU. So either MONGO was lying or purposely subjecting me to RFCU's he knew were not true, or Pro is lying about MONGO in an attempt to make it seem as though MONGO was never part of the fishing expedition, in an attempt to bolster his statements. -- SevenOfDiamonds 10:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/1)

  • Accept to sort this out. FloNight 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The statement by User:Giovanni33 runs to nearly 1200 words, and reads like an op-ed piece. I'd like to see a 500 word limit enforced much more strictly, and people addressing the issue of acceptance. Clerks please note. Charles Matthews18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Accept; scope per Thatcher's comment. James F. (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Accept Fred Bauder 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Final decision Information

Principles

Sockpuppets

4) Sockpuppets are subject to any restrictions placed on the previous account.

Passed 5-0 at 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

NuclearUmpf

4) NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the indefinitely-blocked alternative account of Zer0faults ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is on probation under the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Remedies. He has expressed his intention to disrupt Wikipedia [11].

Passed 5-0 at 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds

5) SevenOfDiamonds ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked by FayssalF ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "block evasion - obvious reincarnation of User:NuclearUmpf". After an inconclusive discussion, the action was reversed and the matter referred to arbitration. See discussions at User talk:SevenOfDiamonds#Unblock and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Passed 4-1 at 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds a sockpuppet

6) The evidence presented by MONGO demonstrates that it is more likely than not that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf.

Passed 4-1 at 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

SevenOfDiamonds

3) As a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, SevenOfDiamonds is subject to the indefinite ban.

Passed 4-1 at 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds&oldid=1138654496"