Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Introduction
started editing as as well as via an IP  which he admitted was his IP:. He also has used ,

the IP 74.73.16.230 resolves to Brooklyn, NYC...where banned editor has edited from... (NuclearUmpf was editor and changed his username and redirected it to NuclearUmpf after Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults)

NuclearUmpf claims grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn NYC and still lives there… , , 

It was pretty obvious that Diamonds was not a newbie editor...his third edit showed he know about cite templates......but he left out the at the beginning and end, but fixed it one minute later ...his very first edit was to an Afd.... Even earlier edits using the IP listed above, he knew what he was doing then....

His second edit to the Afd he responded to being tagged as a SPA... I am not a "single purpose account"

Nuclear clearly stated he intended to continue harassing people leading to his indef ban:

And that he doesn’t seem to care about creating a new account, so it must be easy I suppose Go fuck yourself rofl, just ban the username so I can edit under anon, silly arbcom noobs. and as he stated he has a million proxies he can use instead

and that he is now editing with a different username..."I already started editing under my new account", 18:54, February 20, 2007, "I do not edit under this name anymore. I had to create a new username etc" 08:20, February 21, 2007 and further discussions here

Conflicts
Nuclear had repeated disagreements with a number of editors and mentioned them by name on a few occasions...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearUmpf&diff=prev&oldid=109582921 The following admins are invovled in this ongoing dispute and should not respond to this request because of COI. Aude, JzG, MONGO, Tom Harrison], Tom, Aude, MONGO, JzG, MONGO, JZG, Tom Harrison, Authur Rubin, Tbeatty, Morton (devonshire)...so who does Six/SevenOfDiamonds have disagreements with...same editors...at least the ones still active..."MONGO - TBeatty - Morton - Pablo - Ultramarine" 09:04, July 14, 2007

With MONGO 08:04, June 28, 2007, 08:08, June 28, 2007, 08:14, June 28, 2007, 08:49, July 2, 2007 bogus vandalism report...etc.

With Tom harrison 08:17, June 28, 2007

With Tbeatty 11:21, July 5, 2007

With Aude 08:35, July 15, 2007, 13:53, July 18, 2007

There are plenty more...do I have to post every single incident? I'm sure if these editors are asked, they can substantiate their own personal experiences.

WP:CIVIL
Note...will post more later...me thinks this is a unecessary since all we have to deal with is the ban evasion issue.--MONGO 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds and baiting:


 * Do not be upset at my contributions. Four articles in 30 days, this boy is hot! How are those parks coming along?
 * I do not think yuo are that close to being banned MONGO. There is an article here to discuss you know?
 * My o my o my ... useful commentary indeed, o my my o my
 * Passive agreesive behavior gets you agressive people. Wait, thats called baiting I believe
 * removed childish accusations. The world does not revolve around you. I have written 5 articles in 30 days, go play somewhere
 * Still watching sponge bob I see?
 * Thanks for reporting, I do not mind the break, seems you are taking that AfD a little too hard, but win some, lose some
 * I wish you were an editor, then you would be able to contribute here
 * Congrats I award you a tin foil hat
 * Look I am not playing this game, I am an adult and tired of childish BS. You did not read the source and I am tired of hearing otherwise, your blatant disrespect and false claims are obsurd. Your own quote above proved you have not read the source presented and this conversation is over as you have proven to lie about having read them, and then about their contents. When you decide to be taken serious, then you will act in a serious manner and not lie about sources, and if you have read them, and further about their contents. Giovanni I reccomend you simply post the source if you find the need to respond to him. I am going to do the same, there is no point in arguing in circles because he does not want to read the source, or chooses to lie about it.
 * Sorry this conversation is over, you have just lied regarding sources and as such I cannot have a conversation with you regarding them. Good day.
 * You all are acting like children
 * Sorry I cannot understand troll

Shared edit times
See attached time of time of day edit chart. Diamonds and Nuclear both edit at the same time of day, but of course Nuclear had a lot more edits total than Diamonds has so far…but they coincide with an east coast U.S. time of day Both SevenOfDiamonds and Nuclear have a tendency on weekdays to edit starting at 6 or 7 am east coast U.S. time then a break for an hour or two, resuming at 8 or 9 am, editing throughout the day, another break in the evening and either stopping at that point or adding a few more edits up until 11 pm. Aside from an odd overnight edit or two now and then, this pattern is repeated on a regular basis.

Links to contributions:

Userpage setup
He set up his userpage in an almost identical fashion as SevenOfDiamonds and as Zer0Faults:

Diamonds
 * 

Zer0Faults
 * 

Changes username after corrective action
Nuclear had heavy involvement in the state terrorism article as well as 9/11 conspiracy theories…Diamonds is also heavily enagaged in the state terrorism article and has edited 9/11 related pages. ZeroFaults altered his username and redirected his page to a new username NuclearUmpf, right after arbcom issued some remedies be imposed on him at RFAr Zer0Faults

RFAr Zer0faults and redirected userpage from Zer0faults to NuclearUmpf

Not long after SixOfDiamonds was blocked for 3RR he altered and redirected his Six account to his new Seven one, claiming he had lost his password...which might be true...

Stalking
Has a history of following people around to the point where they have to ask him to stop

Diamonds 04:54, 15 July 2007, 20:24, 17 July 2007, 22:41, 17 July 2007, 16:42, 18 July 2007

Nuclear 17:45, 9 February 2007, Discussion, 18:52, 9 January 2007, 04:49, 9 September 2006

Wikistalking:


 * Votes keep on Afd for state terror article

12:28, June 25, 2007

…I voted delete earlier that day

05:38, June 25, 2007

comments to me about my delete vote above

12:33, June 26, 2007

aside from his comment, which I did not respond to, he and I had no other involvement yet he shows up at 7 World Trade Center (an article he had not previously edited with either his Diamonds or IP accounts) after I had removed misleading information here

12:41, June 26, 2007

and he re added it back (editing as SixOfDiamonds and with his IP) during an edit war with 5 other editors who had reverted him

15:23, June 27, 2007 17:49, June 27, 2007 19:57, June 27, 2007 04:38, June 28, 2007 05:25, June 28, 2007 07:57, June 28, 2007 08:06, June 28, 2007 and was blocked for 3RR 12:19, June 28, 2007
 * Followed me to the Rfwoolf/evidence deletion review which he had no prior involvement with and I had been dealing with it on JzG’s talkpage: 08:23, July 14, 2007


 * After a request for me to assist at an article I haven’t contributed to in more than two years is posted at my talkpage, 15:53, July 29, 2007, SevenOfDiamonds shows up there to comment 06:13, July 30, 2007, 06:14, July 30, 2007 even though I didn’t...he had never worked on the article before


 * Follows me to another page he has never worked on…WP:CANVASS:


 * When I reported another editor for 3RR, Diamonds shows up out of the blue to protest.


 * shows up at another Afd out of the blue...the article is not one he had previously edited...his comment there was posted after I and Aude had commented.

Comment removal
Both have a history of removing comments left on their talk pages by myself and Tom Harrison

Diamonds 05:36, 15 July 2007, 20:28, 17 July 2007, 13:05, 28 June 2007, 13:17, 28 June 2007, 20:06, 2 July 2007

Nuclear 20:54, 15 February 2007, 20:17, 16 February 2007

Template:911ct
Nuclear and the IP 74.73.16.230 (admitted as SevenOfDiamonds ) both edited a rather obscure template...Template:911ct I thought this connection was interesting as Diamonds admits this is his IP...and oddly enough, this template was also editied heavily by Nuclear. Edits done by the IP were the very first he did and just as Nuclear, he was adding more people to the template to try and make it look like conspiracy theories had a bigger following than they did…

Nuclear’s edits were numerous:
 * Template:911ct last 500 edits

The IP added two “rappers” to the template and Nuclear edited and created a few rapper articles...odd since almost all his edits are to conspiracy theories and politics, especially Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles...20:48, 22 September 2006, 21:01, 22 September 2006, Fab Five Freddy editing history, On The Grind editing history

One of the groups added to the template by the IP used by Diamonds was Immortal Technique 17:38, April 13, 2007 and NuclearUmpf (as Zer0faults) made edits to the same article 00:56, 6 June 2006, 14:12, 5 June 2006

State terrorism/Latin American issues
Links immediately below in this discussion are slow to load....

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States has been a favorite article for Nuclear and Diamonds (Nuclear made 300 edits to the talkpage and articleand another 254 to the article talkpage when he edited as Zer0faults...and SevenOfDiamonds has 164 edits total and another 190 when he edited as SixOfDiamonds)...he seems to have knowledge of Latin American issues regarding this subject:

Here, Nuclear re adds a section on Guatemala 11:28, 19 December 2006

As Zer0faults, created a sympathic page about Hugo Chavez in his userspace at User:Zer0faults/Info

Supports the section regarding Cuban claims of state terrorism 23:17, 16 December 2006

An examination of Diamond’s userpage shows his article creation is centered on Latin American issues SevenOfDiamonds userpage

"X…Y…(Z)"
Nuclear and Diamonds often use X and Y or XYZ in their discussions
 * Diamonds: 12:51, 26 June 200716:06, 18 July 200715:51, 26 June 200715:26, 16 August 200715:25, 30 July 200721:39, 29 July 200722:20, 14 July 200708:23, June 28, 2007
 * Nuclear: 11:10, 26 December 200621:07, 18 December 200617:30, 6 December 200620:05, 30 November 200603:46, 21 November 200603:16, 11 November 200605:00, 16 February 200713:20, 21 February 2007

"…Thank you."
Has a tendency to end comments with the sentence, "Thank you:"
 * Diamonds: 17:56, 25 June 200717:25, 26 June 200714:55, 9 July 200714:59, 9 July 200715:03, 9 July 200715:10, 9 July 200718:08, 11 July 200714:00, 16 July 200700:54, 17 July 200720:40, 17 July 200722:08, 17 July 200722:32, 17 July 200714:01, 18 July 200723:01, 23 July 2007
 * Nuclear: 22:07, 7 February 200723:09, 16 December 200615:48, 10 December 200615:05, 10 December 200616:51, 6 December 200620:12, 27 November 200613:03, 15 February 200713:19, 15 February 200713:56, 15 February 200714:09, 15 February 200714:11, 15 February 200716:00, 15 February 200716:07, 20 February 200716:59, 15 February 2007

Common contexts in which this occurs include: 1) challenging someone to provide an argument or a source 2) challenging someone to read something.

"go play somewhere."
Both Nuclear and Seven remove talkpage comments with edit summaries of “go play somewhere” seemed odd to use the word “somewhere” and not add "else":

Diamonds 05:36, 15 July 2007

IP 74.73.16.230 03:06, 2 July 2007

Nuclear 19:05, 2 February 2007

In the first and third examples, this is juxtaposed with "children/childish".

"chest beating"
Both use the term "Chest beating"

Diamonds 21:02, 5 July 2007, 20:36, 17 July 2007, 20:40, 17 July 2007, 16:52, 18 July 2007, 17:09, 18 July 2007, 20:00, 5 July 2007, 19:37, 5 July 2007

Nuclear 16:29, 19 November 2006, 16:47, 19 November 2006

Shared misspellings
While these are not rare, the fact is they show a commonality in style between Diamonds and Nuclear...this is but a sampling

"noone" [sic.]

 * Diamonds: 09:18, July 2, 200719:21, 21 July 200703:05, 22 July 200706:03, 28 July 200711:08, 30 July 200700:24, 16 August 2007
 * Nuclear: 11:50, 22 November 200614:57, 27 November 200614:13, 1 December 200623:05, 1 December 200623:17, 16 December 200602:02, 23 December 200623:17, 25 January 200718:01, 30 January 200709:18, January 20, 200705:10, 16 February 2007 18:07, 16 February 2007

These diffs were drawn from only a superficial sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.

"concensus" [sic.]"
Both SOD and ZF/NU consistently misspell "consensus" as "concensus":
 * Diamonds: 13:06, 13 July 200713:07, 18 July 200717:06, 20 July 200721:14, 22 July 200706:03, 28 July 2007
 * Nuclear: 13:26, 17 June 200610:04, 14 June 200610:25, 15 June 200610:12, 16 June 200613:25, 27 June 200620:56, 27 June 200603:10, 28 June 2006 16:58, 8 September 200601:15, 10 September 200621:36, 22 November 200611:04, 21 February 200713:20, 21 February 2007

These diffs were drawn from only a superficial sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.

Policy shortcuts not wikilinked
Both constantly cite policy and page shortcuts without wikilinking them...ie : WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Doesn’t even write just simply OR or NPOV...this is but a small sampling...he does occasionally wikilink policies, but rarely compared to when he doesn't.

IP 74.73.16.230 20:33, July 12, 2007, 10:09, July 8, 2007, 10:46, July 4, 2007, 10:18, July 4, 2007

Diamonds 16:10, July 22, 2007, 18:51, August 8, 2007, 11:52, July 30, 2007, 08:23, June 28, 2007, 15:28, June 27, 2007

Nuclear 16:47, February 16, 2007, 08:37, February 16, 2007, 08:25, February 16, 2007, 11:17, February 14, 2007, 06:18, February 15, 2007, 08:57, January 18, 2007, 13:44, December 18, 2006, 09:56, December 13, 2006,18:15, December 12, 2006

Shared edit summaries
All accounts have a commonality in using the words “response” and to a lesser degree “note” as well as a single number, most commonly the number “1” or “+1” in edit summaries…Seven has used these short edit summaries with these few words/numbers more 300 times in his edit summaries. Nuclear has done so at the same ratio. Edit summaries are most often just single words. Check links below to see total or most recent edit summaries by Seven/Six/IP and Nuclear.

SevenOfDiamonds
 * 

SixOfDiamonds
 * 

IP 74.73.16.230
 * 

NuclearUmpf (last 500)
 * 

"huh?"
SOD and ZF/NU's edit summaries show many very obvious resemblances. One is the frequency of summaries beginning with, or consisting only of, "huh?":

Diamonds 18:06, 28 July 200718:14, 28 July 200718:21, 28 July 200710:38, 29 July 200714:30, 29 July 2007

Nuclear 12:58, 14 January 200712:35, 14 January 200715:49, 22 January 200721:20, 29 January 200706:25, 2 February 200711:15, 8 February 2007

As with the preceding sections, these were drawn from an incomplete sample; no doubt, there are many more to be found.

"lol"
Another frequent summary is "lol":

Diamonds 21:23, 23 July 200713:21, 29 July 200713:28, 29 July 200717:02, 30 July 2007

Nuclear 21:45, 30 January 200719:45, 31 January 2007 14:43, 2 February 200721:35, 2 February 200711:53, 8 February 200711:57, 8 February 200717:46, 8 February 200718:35, 13 February 2007 Like the above, these were drawn from an incomplete sample.

"rofl"
Diamonds 13:36, 14 August 2007, 14:50, 11 July 2007

Nuclear 06:58, 21 February 2007, 19:54, 20 February 2007, 16:54, 15 February 2007, 11:59, 15 February 2007, 07:06, 15 February 2007, 14:38, 13 February 2007, 15:15, 9 February 2007, 13:57, 9 February 2007, 13:56, 9 February 2007, 16:29, 8 February 2007, 15:24, 7 February 2007, 12:42, 2 February 2007, 14:40, 31 January 2007, 07:29, 31 January 2007, 15:01, 30 January 2007, 14:56, 30 January 2007, 14:37, 30 January 2007, 13:50, 30 January 2007, 14:21, 27 January 2007

"typo(s)"
Corrects spelling errors with the summary, "typo(s)":

Diamonds 15:46, 26 June 200713:08, 13 July 200713:57, 16 July 200716:08, 16 July 200720:40, 17 July 200718:31, 18 July 200718:46, 18 July 200723:39, 18 July 200716:20, 19 July 200716:19, 19 July 200717:25, 21 July 200717:28, 21 July 200719:08, 21 July 2007 03:10, 22 July 200714:33, 22 July 200716:27, 30 July 2007

Nuclear 20:24, 16 February 200711:50, 17 February 200710:58, 21 February 200711:06, 21 February 2007

IP evidence
The full text of this evidence may be found at User:SevenOfDiamonds/IPFallacy.

Behavior of own, and that of others
The full text of this evidence may be found at User:SevenOfDiamonds/Arbcom.

Baiting/CIVIL counter-evidence
I was waiting for MONGO to bring this up since it only makes him look bad. Let examine the edits prior to the ones he points out:


 * 1) MONGO points out: Do not be upset at my contributions. Four articles in 30 days, this boy is hot! How are those parks coming along?
 * Comment preceding: How many times do you have to be asked to sign your username with your IP. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep being such a waste of time? Besides, it is obvious you're a sockpuppet anyway.
 * Summary: Attacks me and then attempts to use my response as an example of baiting? Very interesting. It should also be noted at this point that MONGO is aware that I post from that IP when I go home, He has been aware since June 28th and made that post 2 weeks after. Note also I was called a "sockpuppet" and told I was a "waste of time"
 * 1) MONGO points out: I do not think yuo are that close to being banned MONGO. There is an article here to discuss you know?
 * Comment preceding: Trust me...you keep up this way and there will be a banning.
 * Summary: MONGO threatening another user. I asked MONGO to get back on topic, what a violation of WP:CIVIL I did engage in by asking them to.
 * 1) MONGO points out: My o my o my ... useful commentary indeed, o my my o my
 * Comment preceding: My, my.
 * Summary: The comment MONGO was responding to is located here which is Travb apologizing for an incident. Apparently MONGO considering my reply baiting, however ignores his own edit summary in his post "my, my...lying liars and the lies they tell" That appears to be baiting.
 * 1) MONGO points out: removed childish accusations. The world does not revolve around you. I have written 5 articles in 30 days, go play somewhere
 * Comment preceding: It is pretty obvious you are here to harass me more than anything else.
 * Summary: This was in response to MONGO alluding I am here to harass him. Also after he stated on AN/I that I created the articles I did as a means of creating an alibi to harass him ... I stand by the comment, the world does not revolve around MONGO, as much as he has made my last few days on here about this case, which seems to be just want he wants, attention.
 * 1) MONGO points out: Still watching sponge bob I see?
 * Comment preceding: Hiii OHHH
 * Summary: I was joking with TDC, Hiii Ohhh is what the main character of SpongeBob SquarePants says. MONGO is obviously grasping at straws to consider that WP:CIVIL or baiting. Would responding to someone in the manner TDC did be seen more as baiting? I would think so however I think TDC was just joking and MONGO is desperate for proof of me being a disruptive.
 * 1) MONGO points out: Thanks for reporting, I do not mind the break, seems you are taking that AfD a little too hard, but win some, lose some
 * Comment preceding: MONGO reporting me for 3RR. My one block in 3+ months with a username, and most likely the year or so I have been participating.
 * Summary: Not sure where the baiting is or the WP:CIVIL. Considering the above "Sponge Bob affair" and its grasping at straws, my guess is MONGO is just running out of them all together.
 * 1) MONGO points out: I wish you were an editor, then you would be able to contribute here
 * Comment preceding: (none)
 * Summary: I was trying to find this edit as well but do not have the fancy tools to search. If I was a returning banned user, someone who knew how Wikipedia worked so well, would I have not have known Tom could edit articles being an administrator? How this is an example of WP:CIVIL, I do not know, however thank you for finding it MONGO, it proves a good point.
 * 1) MONGO points out: Congrats I award you a tin foil hat
 * Comment preceding: Good luck to you on that. The diffs showing that you are a POV pushing WP:SPA are, well, all the diffs
 * Summary: Another attack on me, yet MONGO portrays this as evidence that I am baiting him? That I am uncivil to him? Seems to be reversed.
 * 1) Note: MONGO's next two are me disengaging from Ultramarine after he lied about reading a source. The source in question within the first 50 words lists the names of 4 human rights groups in the Phillipines which were accusing the US of State Terrorism, they use the term explicitly. Ultramarine repeatedly stated he read the source and could not find any Human Rights groups anywhere in it. I gave up dealing with Ultramarine after he lied, and admitted to it, about read the source, then within 5 minutes claimed he read it, yet still denied their were Human Rights groups mentioned. This was also after another user pointed out there was. I eventually gave up, and its true. I cannot work with someone if they are lying about a source, and about having read it. More grasping at straws by MONGO. He is not even reading the context of what he is posting.
 * 2) MONGO points out: You all are acting like children
 * Comment preceding: - Everyone arguing over removing or keeping a source because there are no page numbers given. Myself and Seabhcan asked for more time to look for the source and the page etc. Ultramarine (yes again), stated he can removed the source instantly without a page number, refused to help locate one, and an argument broke out regarding how long you leave a source and statement etc. Everyone was acting like children bickering. Including myself. However that was not a violation of WP:CIVIL, well perhaps it was not the best way to state something. The full text, the portion MONGO did not include is me explaining that "The source is verifiable, go search to see if the book exists. The source itself is then verifiable as existing. Your issue is then if the source is stating XYZ due to a lack of page numbers. While I agree page numbers would be more helpful, if there are no quotes being used, you cannot really reference a page to explain an overarching theme of a book."
 * Summary: Where to begin, Ultramarine prepared a massive work of discounting all of the sources in the article, well most at least. He expected the issues to be resolved within a very short time even though the topics ranged from Iran, to Europe, to the US, to South America. All people were asking for was time. I will accept I was not as civil as I could be, however you can see Ultra often did not read the sources he complained about, which made it difficult to work within this context.
 * 1) MONGO points out: Sorry I cannot understand troll
 * Comment preceding: Why not just log in with your old account...the one you used before you got banned?
 * Comment preceding: Good idea...do whatever you can to cover up the fact that your priority here is POV pushing and being a jerk
 * Summary: Again calling me a sockpuppet, and another user a jerk. More great evidence of my incivility toward MONGO. DHeyward lists this gem as proof of my incivility as well, also failing to note the previous attacks by MONGO as what is being addressed.

On typos
Even MONGO's own supporters believe the evidence is faulty, here is Aude telling MONGO how common the edit summary "typo" is. 3rd party people have come forward to show MONGO how common the issues are such as SOPHIA, however showing 1/5th of the wiki-population was not enough to convince MONGO. MONGO himself admitting the link he attempts to draw regarding children/childish is common. This is pretty obvious to even those supporting MONGO, and MONGO himself, that his evidence is flawed. Oddly MONGO choose to present evidence he himself felt was too common. Probably to give as much padding as needed. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of connection
Just want to point out if the below "evidence" by MONGO is proof showing tell-tale signs, why are not many shared between zer0 and Nuclear? I cannot be alleged to be Nuclear and yet not zer0. Quirks and misspellings would carry over to all accounts. More proof of confirmation bias I guess.

Counter to TBeatty/DHeyward
I never admitted to making that edit. I stated specifically that those edit did not make sense to match me since the time frame of not editing is over 1 month. Further, the edits are not even disruptive, or at least do not appear to be without context. Perhaps TBeatty can explain why they are disruptive or provide some counter to my evidence regarding IP's. There is currently a discussion on AN/I stating how inconclusive IP's are for determining sockpuppets. Was Lovelight banned for these edits? Or is this more of the everything and the sink accusation where I am not once again being accused of being Lovelight?

SoD is disruptive
I requested a checkuser for User:SevenOfDiamonds. I believed he may have been the banned editor User:Lovelight. The evidence I outlined is somewhat compelling as the nature of the IP edits matches Lovelights.

User:Lovelight is a banned user. Here the unlogged in Lovelight meatpuppet makes an edit using the 74.73.16.230 IP address. The rest of Lovelight's edits on April 13 are available here. Specifically, this sequence is telling. Later this IP edits as SixOfDiamonds and admits it. SixOfDiamonds became SevenOfDiamonds See redirected page. SevenOfDiamonds edits with 69.201.147.240. Both the IPs are from the same location and from the same RoadRunner IP provider.

Whether SoD is a sockpuppet of a banned editor or a meatpuppet is irrelevant. He proxies the same POV mentality, the same disruptive style and the same result of constant conflict.

This all started when Amarkov filed an AN/I over SoD's disruption and his conflict with MONGO. Specifically, This Edit where he identifies himself and calls MONGO a troll. The An/I asked that a checkuser be filed, so I did based on Lovelight's edits and their similarity to an IP that belonged to SoD. --DHeyward 05:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to SoD
Which edits are you denying are yours? I am confused. Please provide a diff. --DHeyward 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still no reply. You made all the IP edits related to Lovelight now you are denying it? --DHeyward 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by (user)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.