Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Statement by Amarkov
Almost all the objections on the case took the form of "but MONGO's done this too many times already, he can't keep making accusations!" While this sure looks a lot like repeatedly making accusations until one of them sticks, even I admit that the evidence here is pretty convincing. -Amarkov moo! 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Aude
I was the one who filed RFCU, regarding FAAFA and Rootology, based on suspicions MONGO and others had. Jumped the gun on that, and it was a mistake. Apologies to everyone. Reasons why I quickly realized this RFCU was a mistake:


 * 1) Rootology and FAAFA's edits were stale, so RFCU was pointless anyway.
 * 2) When I looked at the editing pattern, time of day, for FAAFA and Rootology, they were totally different. clearly not a match. Time of day isn't 100% proof that SevenOfDiamonds is a match for Nuclear, but it eliminates other possibilities.  With that, one can then look at the editing behavior and style in detail and see if other characteristics match.
 * 3) One characteristics of SoD/Nuclear that stands apart from others, is the way that SevenOfDiamonds seemed to have an issue with me , from the outset.  That never happened with Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley), since I'm not involved on the state terrorism page and rarely interacted with them. So, that was an indication that Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley) are not matches. But, Nuclear did, such as this exchange in February  on a page I had been watching and editing for 1+ years and Nuclear just came on days prior, and asks me to "stop following his edits" and "Try not to poke and prod." Characteristics I've seen in Nuclear's edits match the tone and style I've seen with SevenOfDiamonds.

As for Lovelight, I knew immediately it was not a match. I think the RFCU requester should have known better. First of all, Lovelight's edits are stale by now. Also, the editing styles totally do not match, as well I know the geographic location and IPs used by Lovelight (not at all a match). That's why I asked for that request to quickly be closed.

It's taken a while to pour over the evidence, but this is by far strong evidence when it's all considered collectively. Any one individual bit of evidence wouldn't convince me, but all the pieces together. Unlikely coincidence that this is a new editor and someone other than Nuclear. This is not about politics or anything, but simply that he became quarrelsome and disruptive, as has SevenOfDiamonds. This mess has been a distraction for MONGO and others, to keep having sockpuppets come back to resume the same tactics, arbcom decisions and bans not enforced. If SevenOfDiamonds simply came back and edited more quietly, I'd have no problems with that. But, that's not the situation here, and the drama and disruption needs to stop. I suggest looking past the numbers RFCUs here (many were mistakes or naive), but look at the collective evidence. --Aude (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond Arritt
This is a complex case for several reasons. Most importantly, there is no single piece of evidence that proves sockpuppetry but instead an accumulation of coincidences. Each of these is minor on its own: two people following the same schedule proves nothing; two people editing similar politically-oriented articles proves nothing; two people with a similar grammatical quirk proves nothing; and so on. But when two people follow the same schedules and edit overlapping political articles and edit overlapping non-political articles and have a certain stylistic quirk in common and have another stylistic quirk in common and have various other traits in common the probability of pure coincidence becomes smaller and smaller. The lack of an obvious smoking gun resulted in a failure of administrators to reach consensus at the Arbitration Enforcement board, with some feeling there was a strong case and others summarily rejecting it. A second complication is that there is a history of antagonism and ill-will between some of the parties. Finally, SevenOfDiamonds was the subject of checkuser inquiries in the past that did not find evidence of sockpuppetry, and this fact has been used by some to dismiss the present case out of hand. Nonetheless I believe that this case should be considered on its own merits.

Since administrators are unable to reach a consensus, I request that the arbitration committee take up this case so we can put this recurring source of drama behind us one way or the other.

Statement by FayssalF
This conflict has lasted more than necessary. User:MONGO says he is being harassed all the time by User:SevenOfDiamonds and had accused the latter of sockpuppetry a few times until he prepared User:MONGO/Ban evasion. On the other hand, User:SevenOfDiamonds accuses MONGO of multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry and bullying.

I had blocked SevenOfDiamonds indefinitely as a sock of User:NuclearUmpf who has been blocked indef before. My block justification was this [Ban evasion] mentioned above which i have spotted at the ANI. An hour later i unblocked the account after i found out that there was an ArbEnfor case related to the subject in where no consensus was reached between admins. I obviously thought that the ArbCom is the appropriate entity which can sort this out and where admins failed.

All i want from the ArbCom is to consider this case and see what needs to be done appropriately. Thank you. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AuburnPilot
As one of the admins standing in the way of consensus, I do not believe the evidence provided is enough to block SevenOfDiamonds based on the enforcement of a previous arbitration case. If you look only at the evidence provided by MONGO is his subpage User:MONGO/Ban evasion, there is certainly an indication of sockpuppetry, but if you look at the contributions of the editors as a whole, those diffs begin to look a bit cherry picked.

As for edit summaries, MONGO points out that the two editors use edit summaries with single words or phrases such as "huh", "+1", and/or words such as "response" and "note". True, but if you look at my edit summaries, you see "huh?" , "+1"    , and single word edit summaries such as "response"  and "note". Maybe SOD is my sockpuppet...

Now look at the times they are actively editing. Yes, there is a general similarity, but if both users are in fact residents of New York/surrounding area, it's common sense that the two editors would be active during the same time. This is not evidence of sockpuppetry.

As for the spelling mistakes, I actually had to stop and consider how I'd been spelling those words when looking at the diffs. Thankfully, I've been spelling them correctly, but these are common spelling mistakes. I was actually sure "consensus" was spelled "concensus" but realized it was likely because I'd been looking at the misspelling for several days. Must be another sockpuppet. Same goes for the other spelling mistakes; they are not common to these two users.

Bottom line, there's a fair amount of evidence presented (so much that I can't address it all here), but it is not enough to show they are unquestionably the same person. The spelling mistakes, editing times, edit summary use, and 3RR blocks (note I have one) are not unique to these users and diffs could be provided showing the same for many users. With that in mind, I'll echo several of the users above and suggest the arbcom take this case so that editors and admins can act or shut up. - auburn pilot   talk  18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the knotted facts, by ElC
Regrettably, I feel compelled argue that Theresa had taken a bit too much liberty with the facts, at least with respect to my position. I'll be brief:

In light (no pun intended) of the above, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to feel uneasy about the extent of the phishing. If it changes from the day to day yet continued to be expressed with such certainty, then insisting on having the Committee review the matter and conduct its own investigation is not unreasonable. This is not to pass judgment on the latest, NuclearUmpf evidence by Mongo, which, indeed, I have yet to review. The point is that appearances count and a formal arbitration proceeding looks to be the best way to untie the knots (pun intended!) and retie everything together in a cohesive, comprehensive, and comprehensible format. Thus, I urge the Committee to speedily accept this case. El_C 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) First, where are the Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried? This section should have contained some of the links in a more organized fashion (the various noticeboard threads and some key talk page ones). But this is a relatively minor point.
 * 2) Second, while I did, indeed, object, I did not do so on the basis that SoD "was being harassed." In fact, nowhere have I used the word harassment in connection with this case. I did, nevertheless, express unease with all the phishing. And more on that directly below.
 * 3) Third, with respect to all the phishing, her list above is incomplete and flawed: Giovano33 is not banned. Here are all rfcu and users: a. As IP:70.105.24.127, IP:74.73.16.230, and IP:172.131.137.61 (result: unrelated); b. Rootology and Fairness and Accuracy For All (result: declined, stale); c. Giovanni33 (result: unrelated); d. Lovelight (result: stale, unrelated?). The NuclearUmpf one is likely stale.
 * 4) Finally, the reason I felt uneasy was that the block Theresa had proposed came the next day after the Lovelight RFCU. What struck me was that the user who filed it, argued on ANI that "the evidence is strong enough to stand without checkuser" (italics is my emphasis).


 * I extend my thanks to Theresa for amending her statement in accordance with some of my points. El_C 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias
The ArbCom decided unanimously that harrassment of an editor must be opposed by other editors and admins alike. This was aimed originally at combatting harrassment against MONGO, and has been invoked many times since with regard to attacks against him and various other editors. Commonly, when this ArbCom decision is cited, the point is made that the truth of any particular accusation the "harrasser" is making is either irrelevant or at least of lesser importance compared to the importance of opposing a campaign of harrassment against an editor. Now, is the sauce for the goose as good as the sauce for the gander? If MONGO and his friends, allies, defenders, and enablers engage in a campaign of harrassment of another editor, should that be regarded as a bad thing, even if it's possible one of the accusations in the whole series may be true? MONGO has clearly been out to get SevenOfDiamonds, and, with the assistance of a varying group of others, has tried a whole series of possible sockpuppet users until they could find one that would stick. This one does have some suspicious evidence, though still very circumstantial. But shouldn't the ArbCom be concerned about the sort of organized campaign of serial accusations against an editor that has taken place? Or, if this sort of thing is tolerated, then it needs to be tolerated in the "other direction" too, where even long-time, powerful users like MONGO can't duck criticisms levied at them by labeling their critics "harrassers". Because the sort of thing he did... building a subpage in his userspace collecting evidence against an editor... is precisely the sort of thing that (when it's done by somebody outside the "clique" to somebody inside it) is labeled "harrassment", "outing", "wikistalking", "creating an attack page", or, if done off-wiki, an "attack site", and is vilified and often leads to the person doing this getting blocked or banned. There needs to be an end to the double standard, where a favored clique gets different rights and responsibilities from everybody else, because some animals are more equal than others. *Dan T.* 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tom harrison
I hope the arbitrators will review the evidence and decide whether or not SixOfDiamonds/SevenOfDiamonds is Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf. If he is not, then we can can apologize and move on, hopefully without needing any further dispute resolution. If he is, then the remedies in the previous arbitration should apply. Tom Harrison Talk 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by RxS
I also urge ArbCom to take up this issue. The ban evasion evidence page is quite compelling. Raymond Arritt put it well, so I won't repeat it except to say that each individual piece may not be convincing, but all together they point pretty clearly to a sock puppet link. The number of previous accusations are unfortunate but this request should be judged on it's own merit. I also think that if anyone other than Mongo had brought the ban evasion evidence forward there's a very strong chance the block would have stuck and we wouldn't be here. Mongo's role in this is fair game as is anyone else who is directly involved. One last thing, Dtobias claims that using a subpage to collect and organize evidence constitutes harassment. It needs to be understood that using a subpage for this purpose is perfectly acceptable, it's done routinely in preparation for RFC's, Checkuser requests, mediation request etc. Bottom line, even some of SoD's supporters admit to some suspicions about his status as a sock, this debate has to end somewhere and this is as good a place as any.

Statement by KWSN
As a CU clerk, I patrol those pages a lot. The Lovelight CU page was not checked and closed by a CU, but instead by another admin (I did a listuser to confirm). comic sans ms"> Kwsn  (Ni!)  02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Proabivouac
Before he had posted anything on wiki, MONGO e-mailed me asking me, as an experienced evaluator of sock reports, to review the contributions of ZF/NU and SevenOfDiamonds. It didn't take too much reading to determine that these were probably the same writer. Combined with the circumstantial evidence, ZF/NU's declared intent to return to harass his enemies and special fixation on MONGO, I concluded that Diamonds was ZF/NU.

While such impressions can be reliable, they are black boxy. To demarcate and assemble specific points of evidence is a laborious task which the wiki interface (at least the version I'm using) doesn't facilitate. The first step is to download a corpus of text from both usernames accompanied by diffs and times, which, barring some automated solution, must be done diff by diff. Ideally, this should not be necessary: a handful of disinterested people with a proven ear for style would take a look and come to a conclusion. However, few users are particularly good at this, and fewer willing to examine something in which they have no stake. Per Diamonds' and Auburn Pilot's statements, all assemblies of positive evidence look like "cherry picking" - it's the presence of so many cherries which makes them convincing. Even statistical analyses like the edit time chart are chosen to support the point. Conversely, material which indicates nothing in particular has no place in any report. The only things that would be immune to the "cherry picking" charge are links to contribution histories - and even here it's obvious. While but one point, the consistent misspelling of "concencus" is a fantastic example of something that was anything but "cherry-picked" - one diff MONGO presented showed Diamonds saying "concensus," I wondered if ZF/NU did the same, and googled it: it was everywhere.

To observe that others display one or another of the traits which link these two users is to entirely miss the point. Suppose we identified someone as John Smith, male, 27 yrs. old, born on August 18th, 5'11", 73 kg, living in Sudbury, etc. It is as if we observed, but many people are named John, that means nothing. Many are named Smith; that too, means nothing. Lots of people live in Sudbury. etc. It is the persistent confluence of many logically independent lines of evidence which indicates identity. To proceed as if this reasoning were inherently invalid will make the identification of any sockpuppets - and the enforcement of any remedy - impossible.Proabivouac 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tbeatty
I requested CU for SevenOfDiamonds being Lovelight because in the middle of the history of a bunch of disruptive edits that Lovelight was later banned for, were two IP edits doing the identical thing. SoD admits these disruptive edits were his before he created the Six/Seven accounts. I did not know that MONGO had such a strong case against SoD being NuclearUmpf and he was planning on filing a arbitration enforcement case. There are two things that are known here: 1) SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet with the only question remaining is of whom (and MONGO has an extremely convincing case) and 2) SevenOfDiamonds is disruptive enough that he has drawn the attention and ire of numerous editors and admins. Having to complain about so many checkuser requests isn't a badge of honor but rather something that should give great pause to the quality of contributions being offered by this person. His similarity to a number of banned editors is problematic at best. If he is NuclearUmpf, then the protestations can just be added to the long list of lies proffered by NuclearUmpf prior to his ignominious departure. --Tbeatty 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Giovanni33
I would like this case to be considered because it involves questions of user behavior. Specifically, the hounding, personal attacks, and user check phishing, with over 5 user checks, and various bad faith accusations--all carried out by this small group of POV opponents with questionable behavior and editing practices, against a rather good editor--SevenOfDiamonds. Arbcom should comment on the appropriateness of this, so that SOD can be free of this harassment to edit in peace, continuing to create valuable articles for this project, as he has been doing.

I feel Arbcom has a basis to look at this because I believe there has been a systematic attempt by right wing editors to purge Wikipedia of left wing editors with whom they come into conflict with over article content. Thus it’s no coincidence that the repeated fishing expeditions have been by various far right editors against effective left wing opponents. WP “Is not a battleground' but what I've seen is that it is being treated as a major political battleground, unfortunately: a team of tight knit right-wingers are constantly going after those who opposes them on various politically charged articles. This takes the forms of taunting, personal attacks, lots of requests for user checks, lots of digging to make cases that the editor is a sock of a banned user, wiki-stalking to edit war, etc.

Despite the various and continued user checks, which have all shown to be without basis, now we have this new tactic, yet the weakness of nature of evidence, and lack of assuming good faith remains at the root. Looking at some of the specific charges, I see a classic case of confirmation bias: the case is being cherry picked to create an image that doesn't quite fit; I happened to see the evidenced match another editor whom I did not like that much (because he always likes to remove information because the source isn't the best instead of fact tagging it and allowing other editors to find better sources--or find them himself). Nuclear did this but SOD doesn't. The politics are not the same, and the editing tactics have not been the same. What stands out with this cherry picked evidence that it only looks for 'evidence" that furthers the thesis--what the POV opponent, the accuser wants to advance; it disregards any evidence that doesn't fit. Thus, we don't see a NPOV presentation of the evidence at all--no limitations section, or facts that don't fit but are very relevant. No, we only see every possible angle that can further the desired agenda to make the case to get this user banned. Its classic cherry picking that displays confirmation bias. And even then it can only paint a cloudy picture at best because there are common sense alternative explanations if one assumes good faith interpretations. SOD deserves our good faith assumptions which knocks down each and every one of these various circumstantial pieces of evidence. That leaves us with a question of assuming good faith nor not? Now, in truth, I did not give serious consideration to the alleged evidence simply because it’s like the boy who has cried wolf once too many times, and this is just more of the same. Also because of the clear political nature of who is making the accusations against whom. For these reasons the charges lose some credibility. So Arbcom should comment on the importance of not going after editors that you disagree with over content disputes, trying to make a case over and over again by any means necessary without a solid basis because such constitutes harassment.

Arbcom can also take the case to comment that even if we think the evidence is noteworthy, even if we think its significant, and even if we think its compelling (not that it is), then we have to ask, aside from the question of fairness given the possibility the he is innocent (as I think), it’s a question of what is best for WP. The editor in question, in fact, has been contributing in a very positive way to WP, making this a better place. He has worked well with all serious editors on improving article contact with the use of the talk page. In WP best interest, we should err on the side of caution, not consider banning such a good editor from the project. We need more editors like SOD, and quite frankly, less editors like those who are accusing him and want to see him banned. Arbcom can reinforce this cardinal principle: do what is best for WP, the spirit of the rules, not always the exact letter of the law. So the larger issue is that any examination of the fact regarding the possibility of him being a sock should be tempered with that most important rule of all (ignore all the rules) that reminds of why we are all (supposed) to be here in the first place: to write an encyclopedia first and foremost. If anything gets in the way of that all-important rule, then disregard it. That goes for any conclusion that SOD is a returned and reformed banned user---which I highly doubt.

In this light I hope that the honorable judges of the arbitration board, as revered, trusted, and respected members of the community, and as members who are in a position to take a stand that has some lasting and enforceable effect, issue statements that the will have the positive effect that WP needs so that SOD can be left alone to edit in peace, and that those who keep hounding him are warned appropriately and reminded once again that WP is NOT a battle ground. As another editor wrote on SevenOfDiamond's talk page: "As you are patently the victim of both WP:STALK and WP:HARASS from multiple editors including MONGO, Tbeatty,...Morton Devonshire,...it may be in your own best interests to pursue arbitration against all of them directly. Given that they have harassed you in a continuous fashion for nearly a month, you have demonstrated deep patience and calm in this troublesome situation. That you have not lashed out at even one of them is a testament to your personal strength, moral fibre, and ethical compass. Please consider it, for your own safety and protection. It is the responsibility of every single Wikipedia administrator to defend and protect all other users on this website." I agree. We should protect our fellow Wikipedians. Finally, lets leave our personal POV at home (as much as possible), and not divide the community between right vs. left—but lets instead unite with our common goal of building an encyclopedia for everyone according the both the letter and spirit of the various rules and guidelines for whose purpose they were created.Giovanni33 05:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131
Um, what is this case for? There was a request to take enforcement action against SevenOfDiamonds at Arbitration enforcement. It was clear that there was no consensus among admins to act based on the proposed sockpuppet identification, so I closed the discussion after recommending Arbitration. This was proven hours later when FayssalF blocked Seven and then unblocked after complaint and discussion on the noticeboard. But I think the parties have missed my point. I believe there should be a new Arbitration case to deal with allegations that SevenOfDiamonds is a disruptive editor who should be sanctioned. Such a case would also probably have to deal with SevenOfDiamonds' counter-allegation that MONGO has harassed him. I have not looked at extensively at Seven's behavior but after 4 or 5 different sockpuppet allegations, it is obvious than many editors feel he is a disruptive editor who should be removed, but there is no consensus among admins for a community ban. If there is going to be a case, that should be its focus. Thatcher131 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace
I have interacted with both MONGO and SevenOfDiamonds in the recent past on the notorious Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. MONGO, and others, have spent a great deal of time gathering evidence that SevenOfDiamonds is NuclearUmpf and have presented it in good prosecutorial fashion. The evidence is essentially all circumstantial, but obviously a pretty good case can and has been made. I've reviewed most of the evidence and personally I am agnostic on the SoD/NU question at this point, in part because similar effort has not, so far, been made to find exculpatory evidence that SoD is not NU (beyond some points mentioned by SoD above). I think it would be useful for someone to present such evidence (preferably a neutral person) so it can be weighed against what MONGO has gathered. I never knew NU and don't know the specifics of his banning, but if he is violating it using the SoD account then obviously appropriate remedies should be taken.

Like Giovanni I am worried about possible confirmation bias. MONGO and others have assumed for a long time that SoD is a ban evader/troll (hence the repeated check user attempts). They may be right and ArbCom should certainly make a decision about this claim, but of course they may be wrong. In addition to examining the SoD/NU connection, I believe ArbCom should look generally at the dispute between MONGO and SoD, as that dispute is what lies behind this whole thing and god knows it's spilled over on to AN/I on multiple occasions. Personally I think SoD has a fairly strong claim to harassment (or some other word if you prefer) by MONGO and other editors who have accused him of being a troll or a sock (MONGO's edit to SoD's user talk page here is probably the most egregious example). Even if SoD is a ban evader, the efforts by other editors to essentially blacklist him might also be problematic (just as a cop may catch a criminal but go about it in an illegal or immoral fashion). Having several (unsuccessful) check users run against you may be a sign that you are a problem editor as Tbeatty and Thatcher131 suggest above, or it may be a sign that other editors simply don't like you and are campaigning actively to run you off Wikipedia. The latter would obviously be disturbing, and I would hope that ArbCom takes up this case to evaluate: 1) The SoD/NU connection if any, 2) The general conduct of various involved users, 3) The question of whether the repeated accusations against SoD and failed RFCUs violated the spirit or letter of policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Obviously a conclusion--even if it's one of no consensus--should be reached on the first question before considering addressing the latter two.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jaranda
I agree with Bigtimepeace. I want to see arbcom deal with everyone involved in those American terrorism articles and the 9/11 consiperacy articles, not only SevenofDiamonds, but Giovanni, MONGO, etc. This type of edit warning and attacks as been going on for more than a year and there is no sign of stopping. It's better to focus on this in one case rather than multiple cases about the same topic. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the scope of the case?
I don't think it's quite clear. Could the arbitrators clarify, please? -Amarkov moo! 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever
I knew this would happen. -Amarkov moo! 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the finding that SoD is a sock, but the fact that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF were deemed not relevant to this case is more than a little disappointing. I would think that those guidelines would be relevant in basically everything we do here, and would certainly be relevant in a case where the evidence seemed to clearly demonstrate breaches of both WP:CIV and WP:AGF (SoD's evidence seems to have had no bearing whatsoever on this case). This ruling, as I read it at least, strongly implies that if a new user raises "alarm bells" (whatever that means exactly) for others than we can throw good faith and civility out the window. I don't think that sets a very good precedent for reasons that I hope are obvious. I'm disappointed that the issue of MONGO's apparent incivility (alluded to by a number of users in good standing who participated in the case, not just SoD) was essentially pushed aside. It seems to be a perennial problem (even in the last few days apparently), but not one that the community is capable of dealing with in a constructive fashion. That's quite unfortunate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 

Statement by User:Kendrick7
I am fully in favor of giving the editor formerly known as User:SevenOfDiamonds amnesty. He has been a fine, if illegal, contributor under the guise of User:I Write Stuff for two and a half months, and was only caught out again because he was over zealously defending another user from rather tenuous charges of sockpuppetry very similar to the case under which he himself was banned, which seems a noble gesture if anything. Prior to this he used other accounts, which have also been blocked for no reason other than being the supposed sock of an indef blocked editor who once upon a time threatened the project with wanton disruption.

None of those accounts carried out the threats of the editor who ArbCom ruled he was a sock of:

All along this editor has contributed to the project constructively, with all of one 3RR block. Block logs:

And additionally has created 42 articles:

Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico, COCEI, Rodolfo Fierro, Narciso Bassols, Movimiento de Liberation National, Genaro Vázquez Rojas, Elvia Carrillo Puerto, Demetrio Vallejo, Arturo Lona Reyes, Adolfo Christlieb Ibarrola, Andrés Molina Enríquez, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Sonora Cartel, Los Negros, Edgar Valdez Villarreal, Sinaloa Cartel, Agustín Casasola, Heraclio Bernal, Luis Amezcua Contreras, Jesus Amezcua Contreras, Adán Amezcua Contreras, Colima Cartel, Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, Javier Barba-Hernandez, Héctor Luis Palma Salazar, Mariana Grajales Coello, Ponciano Arriaga, Don Pedro Jaramillo, Salvador Nava Martínez, Jose Antonio Llama, Mario Montoya Uribe, Zapata Swamp, Zapata Wren, BINCI, Harold Bedoya Pizarro, Colombian presidential election, 1998, Zapata Sparrow, Luis Hernando Gómez Bustamante, Polaris (poker bot), Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia, Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla.

Hopefully this shows that he is not the disruptive editor he was accused of being. He would like to return to writing articles without the stigma attached and the constant on the run article creation. It's completely unclear, beyond reasons of personal egos of certain involved administrators, why this block continues. -- Kendrick7talk 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Merzbow, I'm uncertain whether sneaking back into the project and being a productive wikipedian is necessarily less respectful of the project than sitting on the sidelines moping for some indefinite period per WP:IAR. Having to constantly look over his shoulder for the INS for the past year seems punishment enough. Insisting he sit out now just seems WP:POINTy, and while he went a ways overboard with the G33 case, the history here makes it obvious why that case pushed his buttons. -- Kendrick7talk 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Horologium, there's been scant evidence of actual disruption, certainly none which ever rose to the level of a blockable offense apparently. Even the original ArbCom ruling made no finding that SevenOfDiamonds had in fact been disruptive, despite the arguments and evidence given in the case by certain editors of opposite political views. -- Kendrick7talk 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:B, yes, an apology would be great, but it's uncertain what SevenOfDiamonds is supposed to apologize for, since he continues to maintain he's not NuclearUmpf; Mr. N.U. could be on a beach in Tahiti trolling 4chan on his laptop and not be about to apologize for anything. Insisting SoD confess that's he's this other guy and apologize for that guy's behavior seems a bit of a two + two = five situation. People with life sentences make the worst prisoners; therefore, if it's solely a matter of doubt at to whether or not we've managed to properly break his spirit, at the very least the block should be shortened to some value of time less than infinity, so he can comply with the ban with some reasonable expectation of eventual re-admittance (even with certain restrictions) to the community. I sincerely believe that's in the best interest of the project. -- Kendrick7talk there are four lights! 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:Rlevse, I wholeheartedly agree that the community should cease wasting time with this, and I suggest some sort of amendment to the case would quite exactly make that possible. What we need to ask ourselves is whether, as our critics claim, wikipedia is about power tripping and WP:DRAMA or whether, as I secretly hope, it is about writing an encyclopedia. Because, despite our best efforts, that's what SevenOfDiamonds keeps doing -- writing an encyclopedia. And we need to face the reality that it's unlikely we will be able to successfully stop this behavior; we're just not getting through to this guy that our critics are right. Please raise your hand if you want to be preventing him from doing this for the next forty or so years because I think that's the true waste of time. As the lyrics of the one hit song by The Refreshments, "Banditos" says:
 * So give your ID card to the border guard
 * Your alias says you're Captain John Luc Picard
 * Of the United Federation of Planets
 * Cause they won't speak English any ways

He'll make a few dozen articles, we'll figure him out again, and the process will repeat. -- Kendrick7talk you didn't think I'd get that third Picard reference in did ya? 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Like Merzbow, I didn't pay attention to the case at the time, but I don't think any halfway decent computer scan would show a connection here, beyond both accounts being from metropolitan New York and being on a 9 to 5 schedule, which is pretty meh. Aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults almost entirely edited in articles connected to 9/11, and occasionally regional graffiti artists and DJs, obscure Nato/Turkish/African military patrols, and the occasional Middle Easterner's bio (who probably have some 9/11 link). SevenOfDiamonds, et al., aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, most edited in articles related to Latin America militant groups, other Latin American topics, and (rarely) poker. The longer I look at it, the less it adds up. There are two outliers MONGO suggests. There's the band none of my friends under 25 would shut up about 2 years ago, the New York group Immortal Technique (made me listen to their song about 9/11 like 20 times), which Zero edited and SoD added to a template. And, Nuclear had a user subpage on Hugo Chavez, which hopefully you don't need to be an expert on Latin America to have heard of -- and who, as it says in his article, gives NYC tons of cheap heating oil, which makes him quite popular there (his article doesn't mention he does the same thing for Boston, and it sure makes him popular here). That hardly makes him the guy who's written dozens of articles on Cuba/Mexico etc. So these just don't convince me of a definitive link. Nor does the use of common messageboard speak (lol/rofl/+1). It's just "pop culture" type stuff for lack of a better term. -- Kendrick7talk 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, yeah, User:FayssalF, I know where you are coming from. I'm happy to advise SoD to go completely away for two or three months as a show of good faith in the community and it's policies, at which point I'd be happy to file an appeal on his behalf, if this is something the Arbs felt would properly reshuffle the deck, so he can then get a new deal. -- Kendrick7talk 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * :confused: You know, if I was playing poker at a live casino, and there was a dispute over a misdeal or an angle shoot, and I called the floorperson over only to have him mutter something about butterflies and wander off, I think I'd go on tilt :-) I'm busy all weekend, but if it's process you want, and it's not simpler to amend the original case somehow, I can also just open a case up on Monday, and let the chips fall where they may. -- Kendrick7talk 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or to simply be more blunt, whatever wisdom you are trying to impart has sailed way over my head; any more straightforward guidance would be appreciated. -- Kendrick7talk 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this; I'm still crossing my t's and dotting my lower case j's here. Browsing the sock category, I found at least one example of a sock of Mr. N.U. (User:WheezyF, again, primarily editing NY DJs and rap artists before getting caught) claiming via another confirmed IP sock, User:TenOfSpades, to be SevenOfDiamonds, which, while unsurprising for an editor who has pledged continued disruption, complicates things. I want to confirm for myself that my contention is plausible before opening a case, but no smoking gun yet. I guess MONGO is right about that much -- N.U. indeed continues to pop in and cause problems. -- Kendrick7talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Merzbow, that's the diff I was referring to. See here for where Thatcher confirms all three are the same, yet on a different ISP from User:N4GMiraflores who we know with certainty is SoD. Yeah, it would be nice to find an example of prior art where SoD lists all the articles he created. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, aren't there are exactly two POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article -- people who want to expand it and people who want to delete it? Unless you are suggesting there is a subtler shade of POV I don't know about, that's not a cannon in itself. -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you changed your argument to expanded your argument to include the 9/11 conspiracy article. I don't see how those two diffs relate though. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My head is spinning. It does seem N.U. also argued that he has created many articles as well in the past as can be seen on his own user page so I find the "smoking gun" diff odd but not inexplicable. As such, I will open a case soon, but I think one of SoD's account would need to be unblocked to act in his own defense if a case is opened, as I can't follow all the levels of intrigue going on here; especially when you start throwing 's socks in the mix. My hamper contains less socks than the U.S. state terrorism article and I haven't done laundry in three weeks. In the meantime, I strongly recommend SoD leave his comments on his own talk page, where they are permitted, and I will attempt to review them, rather than continuing to violate his ban. You are in a hole -- stop digging amigo!! -- Kendrick7talk 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Merzbow, I noticed that right away and assumed you had as well; that's why I called it a "confession." Look at IWS's (illegally posted) argument below. If N.U. was in fact following/disrupting the original case as SoD/IWS claims, it's not unreasonable that he'd lay low and wait until it was finished to resume editing from a new account believing the coast was now clear. SoD came back during the same timeframe as User:N4GMiraflores who was even part of the same checkuser. If SoD and N.U. are the same person, why would he create two accounts using two ISPs to edit two different topic areas (Latin Americans vs. NY musicians), only to "confess" that they are the same person in the course of harassing SPTS, who was actually an ally of SoD? It doesn't add up; especially if what IWS says below is true: that they in fact edited from opposite POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article, which is something I was previously unaware of. -- Kendrick7talk 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think a ten day overlay is anything close to a precise fit; I mean, you'd have to assume SoD got a secondary IP and created the N4GMiraflores with the malice of forethought to throw away the Wheezy account by harassing User:Stone put to sky about sockpuppetry SPTS hadn't even committed yet, which is about equally "grassy knoll." And the big gap in your reasoning is that N.U. is SoD even though they disagreed about the U.S. state terrorism article, while Wheezy and SoD are the same precisely because they did agree. Either N.U. had a complete change of heart and became SoD, in which, yes, case he could be Wheezy, or he didn't in which case, no, he couldn't be SoD. And yet Wheezy claimed to be both. So I don't see how things add up at all here. -- Kendrick7talk 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've tried to remind people are that page and it's subpages over the last few weeks, WP:PRESERVE is a policy, not a POV, so say of me what you will. But ultimately, I think the best thing to do is to submit a case; perhaps this aberration can be sorted out. -- Kendrick7talk 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace
I was contacted by SevenofDiamonds about this on my talk page and will comment here. SoD contests the findings at Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds that they were a sock of ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf. That's fine, but that was the ArbCom's decision, and quite frankly I don't think we should rehash it here. Rather than focus on whether or not SoD is ZF/NU, we should focus on the behavior of the user SevenofDiamonds and consider their request for an unblock.

I would support that request with some conditions. There is no doubt that SoD has written dozens of articles and thus contributed constructively to the encyclopedia. However they have also been mixed up in a number of rather contentious disputes centered around Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Indeed this article (and perhaps some related ones) have been the source of all of SoD's troubles. That user has engaged in some uncivil behavior in the past (see here for example, and there might be some stuff under the account I Write Stuff, but nothing egregious unless I'm missing something). I would suggest that it would be reasonable for SevenofDiamonds to agree to the following as a condition of an unblock:


 * 1) Indefinite topic ban on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles (defined as articles to which the dispute from the main article has carried over, such as Guatemalan Civil War. SoD may feel their behavior was not disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but given that this is an unblock request and that this article has been the source of trouble this seems reasonable.
 * 2) No interaction with User:MONGO, who presented the evidence at the original arbitration case. It's possible that this should be extended to other users as well (perhaps User:DHeyward), but at the least SoD should stay away from MONGO and articles he edits.
 * 3) SoD picks one account, informs ArbCom of it, and agrees to edit only with that account. Other accounts would remain blocked.
 * 4) I assume all of this would be logged at the original arbitration page, and perhaps a link to that would be necessary at SoD's user page so that editors and admins know the situation should future problems come up.

There might be other necessary conditions but this seems like a reasonable start. Violation of any of the terms would lead to another indef block. It seems obvious that SoD will continue to maintain that they are not ZF/NU, so asking them to admit to that will be a non-starter. Maybe they really are, or maybe ArbCom got it wrong. Like I said it perhaps does not actually make much difference either way. SoD likes to write articles and I'm fine with unblocking to let them do that, so long as they completely avoid the areas which have got them into trouble in the past (if the user is going to keep writing articles no matter what, it seems silly to make them post the articles on my talk page). The committee could even say they still stand by the decision in the SevenOfDiamonds case that the user is NuclearUmpf, but so long as the user agrees to stick to one account, avoid problem areas, and not cause disruption they can be unblocked and allowed to contribute. These are just initial ideas and there might well be other issues to consider. I have no idea if SevenofDiamonds is agreeable to these terms or not because we have not discussed this issue, the user just informed me of this request via a talk page message and I am apparently here as a "friendly" party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to Merzbow, I would not really have a problem with a waiting period but don't know what we gain by holding off for 6 months. If anything it makes more sense to have SoD agree to the above terms (and perhaps others) now rather than just letting them create more new accounts which could be disruptive. We should think in terms of what's actually workable. If we can find an agreement that lets SoD contribute but keeps them out of troubled areas then why not do it now? And we should definitely add William M. Connolley, yourself, and anyone else who wants to the list of people SoD should keep away from (within reason of course, we can't have a list of 20 people and I think it would only be a handful anyway - I think basically just a few people from the US State Terrorism article). Also if SoD was causing disruption in 9/11 articles a topic ban there would be justified as well. In general I'm quite open to broadening the restrictions I mention above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that, while I don't know if it was intentional or not, I find it amusing that SoD has created 42 articles. Given the popularity of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here at Wikipedia that should surely count for something.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update. Given the strong objections below (and particularly given DHeyward's comment - I had no idea that NU had engaged in real-world harassment published private information about a Wikipedia editor [amended per DHeyward comment below]) I now think it makes sense to, at the least, hold off on this. I would suggest that SevenofDiamonds go about 6 months without creating new accounts and without violating the ban with IP edits. I would note though, and perhaps the committee can provide some guidance on this, that SoD (using another account) posted on my user talk page informing me they intended to submit articles to my talk page in the hopes that I would post them. That would put me in a rather odd position. I would certainly never proxy edit for a banned user, but on the other hand if they are decent articles (which seems generally to have been the case with SoD in the past) it would seem somewhat absurd to not put them in article space. Even if ArbCom rejects SoD's request as I assume they will I'd appreciate some guidance on that issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow
I urge ArbCom to reject this motion for now. It is true that IWS/Seven can contribute good content, but he also cannot stop the disrupting and harassing activity that got him banned in the first place: see this ANI thread for an overview of examples of both during the Giovanni33 ArbCom case; he also has a vendetta against WMC, starting an RFC here, then following WMC to an article IWS has never edited to revert-war against him, then warning WMC here; etc. His unwillingness to respect a legally imposed ArbCom remedy and instead sockpuppet prolifically also does not bode well for his ability to work within the community. My advice to him is to stay away for six months to a year to show his respect for this community, then appeal for a second chance, which must come in conjunction with a topic ban for the areas that he only disrupts and never contributes to (i.e. articles on U.S. foreign policy and 9/11), plus a ban on interaction with those he's harassed (i.e. Mongo, me, to start). Yes, basically BTP's remedies, but not now, because that would be a reward for his deception, disruption and socking. He needs to take a long time-out first.


 * To BTP: 9/11 was in reference to actions under the NuclearUmpf account, which was infamous for pushing conspiracy theories in that area; some SoD's early edits did the same. Anyways, we don't give into blackmail here. A threat to continue to create new accounts "unless" should not be met by capitulation, because then every other banned user is going to feel it's OK. The bottom line is that via his actions, he has already shown he does not feel the rules of the community apply to him, so why should we give him a second chance until he can demonstrate otherwise by, you know, not sockpuppeting for a while? - Merzbow (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who believe the NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds connection was weak: I was not involved with that case, but looked at recently, and they are the same person. If we have to go through it again, we will, and with evidence five times as detailed as that presented in the original case, if necessary. I implore ArbCom not to put the community through this exercise again unless they have new and extremely convincing evidence. For just an example of what we would see, I noticed that as part of the Mantanmoreland ArbCom evidence, somebody ran an exhaustive computer analysis of time-day-edits between thousands of accounts, and their conclusion (with graphs) was "User:SevenOfDiamonds and User:NuclearUmpf had remarkably similar editing patterns, with 0.7758 correlation coefficient, which is a bit better than the 99th percentile." (link here). (I would also note that Mantanmoreland was indef'd today after further evidence came to light of socking.) - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick: I didn't know that, who it seems nobody disputes is a N.U. sock, was CU confirmed to be the same as (and ), a painfully obvious SoD sock (see this post, which appears to be the first occurrence of SoD's now patented list of created articles + whine). This appears to be the smoking gun, no? - Merzbow (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK folks, we have WheezyF start editing for the first time on 2007-10-19, a day after SoD's last edit ever on 2007-10-18. WheezyF's interest in rap provides a key linkback to N.U. not present in SoD's contributions, while WheezyF's PoV on "Allegations..." is identical to SoD's (and an evolution from N.U.'s). The smoking gun has just turned into a smoking cannon. (Also, I've found it instructive that one of N.U.'s last edits was a pro-conspiracy edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories, while one of SoD's first was to the same article with the same POV ). - Merzbow (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick: I didn't change diffs, I just added an additional point (9/11) to the original point (interest in rap - half of WheezyF's history, lots of N.U.'s). Both diffs are from the pro-9/11 conspiracy POV; the latter obviously so, the former removed an unfavorable comparison of 9/11 conspiracy belief to a belief in aliens. (N.U. was a 9/11 conspiracy pusher on many articles, SoD also has other edits to this effect). My overall thrust is that the (ahem) "Nuclear option" - an entirely new case whose purpose is to overturn the first case - should be looking far less attractive now. What should be done is for somebody - preferably an Arb - to propose and get voted on, in this case motion, a path back to legal editing for SoD, based on some of the restrictions already suggested. - Merzbow (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, the gun is even more smoking than I thought. Look closely at the list of articles created claimed by TenOfDiamonds/WheezyF: - I just noticed that it includes articles created both by N.U. and SoD (e.g., Kimberly Osorio is N.U., and Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía is SoD). The only way out here for SoD is to claim WheezyF was created by N.U. specifically to frame him - a quite improbable scenario, given the account was made a day after SoD was blocked and continued editing for months. Nobody is going to believe N.U. came back from the dead after eight months (on the day after SoD's block) specifically to conduct an elaborate frameup campaign against an editor who joined Wikipedia four months after he left. - Merzbow (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, N4GMiraflores was a follow-on account to WheezyF, not "of the same timeframe" - WheezyF edited from 10-19-2007 to 2-14-2008 (with a single edit at 2-22-2008), while N4GMiraflores/IWS edited from 2-12-2008 onward on a new ISP. - In other words, WheezyF almost precisely fills the gap between SoD's last edit and N4GMiraflores/IWS's first edit. If WheezyF was N.U. trying to sneak back in after SoD's ban, why did he all of a sudden decide to throw it away by announcing he was SoD (via TenOfDiamonds, plus editing "Allegations" with an identical PoV)? The alternative - that WheezyF was envisioned from the beginning to be a disposable account meant to last months, with hundreds of good edits, and frame SoD - is grassy-knoll material. Nothing adds up except for the plainest reading of the evidence - SoD is WheezyF, and thus N.U. - Merzbow (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a ten-day overlap, it's a two-day overlap with a single stray edit on the 22nd. And yes, SoD's PoV moved toward the inclusionist side, but it was still noticeably less so than G33, SPTS's, or yours - so it's certainly not "opposite"; and note that SoD and NU again share a pro-9/11 conspiracy PoV, so that didn't evolve. More importantly, WheezyF makes this moot - you cannot claim NU did not evolve his PoV if you want to also claim NU is WheezyF (because WheezyF's dozens of "Allegations..." edits were pro-inclusionist, basically indistinguishable from SoD's). Your only other way out is to claim NU as WheezyF deliberately faked all of those "Allegations..." edits to frame SoD - a grassy knoll theory that makes about as much sense as the real grassy knoll theory (as I've explained above). The logic here is pretty airtight. Anyways, I think we've both written more than enough, and are in danger of being forcibly refactored by a clerk, so this is my final statement on the matter. Do what you will. - Merzbow (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I summarized the above evidence in a more organized form here, as a statement in the now-rejected SoD2 case. - Merzbow (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I've not seen positive contributions by this editor which would outweigh the immense amount of time wasted in dealing with his independently disruptive socks. I'm also not clear on why we should condone the admitted evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, particularly when the editor in question continues to rationalize his ban evasion and deny any fault whatsoever. So User:I Write Stuff managed to edit constructively for one whole month before lapsing into disruptiveness. Have we sunk to the point where that's exceptionally praiseworhty? Editors able to contribute useful content without repeatedly running afoul of basic policy are not so rare that we need to waste more time on this. But admittedly, I'm grouchy at the moment since the USA lost 2-nil to England, so take that with a grain of salt. MastCell Talk 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium
I would strongly recommend that the arbitrators reject this appeal. The almost continuous disruption caused by this account (under many names, the two most recent being User:I Write Stuff and User:SevenOfDiamonds) far, far outweighs the positive contributions. Sockpuppetry (especially of a particularly disruptive nature, as is the case here) is not something that can be excused, and allowing this user another chance opens the door to appeals of a similar nature. Does anyone really want to have to deal with JB196, WordBomb, LBHS Cheerleader, Pwok, Grawp, or any of many abusive sockpuppeteers asking for another chance, citing this as precedent?  Horologium  (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Giovanni33
It is reasonable to unblock this user. He has proven himself a net positive to the project through content creation, and I've seen many positive contributions. See his cooperative statement and evidence of his valuable contributions:At a minimum, 42 excellent articles created by this user refutes those who claim, "no positive contributions." These many contributions are not negated by the possibility that may have been NuclearUmf in the past, and made poor choices then that led to him being banned back then. In so far as this possibility is true, it's only relevant to the extent that he replicates the problematic behaviors. He has not. At the very least his current conduct under the new accounts should weigh a lot more than previous conduct, if the original problems are no longer evident; he may not be perfect but he is certainly a lot better than many other established editors who we are not sanctioning in any manner. Thus, it's also a matter of equal protection and fairness for me, as well as pragmatic reasons. Ironically the "disruption" stems from the fact of his 'illegal' status here: it's the de jure insistence that he remain blocked and what follows from that fact, against his de-facto unblocked status that is the source of disruption. It is therefore counter productive in light of his actual positive contributions, which he will continue to make, and wants to make, no matter what. Administrative decisions, if they are in the best interest of the project, must be flexible and look at the bottom line: what is best for the project? Even if we believe that he was the indef.banned user (Nuclear), the new accounts were only banned on the basis of asserting such a link.

Also, if he is telling the truth about his original blocking based on mistaken socket-puppet conclusions, then I certainly can relate to that, and give him credit for proving himself loyal to the project inspite and despite the rules. It's a classic and ultimate case of IAR being put into practice. That is an area that is problematic, but the best way to deal with it is to make an evaluation on pragmatic grounds (what IAR was meant for).

Lastly, I want to point out that SevenOfDiamonds was not indef.blocked/banned by his Arbcom case. In fact, arbcom, in their wisdom, did NOT proscribe any remedy. They simply concluded that given the standard of 'more likely than not," one account was the other. They did not feel a need to issue any restrictions, or take any punitive measures. It was up to any admin to either feel a block was then warranted, or for him to be left in peace to edit. At this state, I agree with BTP, that it doesn't matter if SOD was Nuclear or not, or how likely he was, etc. Conditions should be ratified so as to codify a situation with the aim of minimizing as much disruption as possible while maximizing the positive. To me this means an unblock, perhaps with conditions, and for his opponents to reciprocate in abstaining from any uncivil interaction against him moving forward. If he wants to write articles, then who are we to stop him? To do so is to elevate form above substance, to raise the letter of the law above its spirit. Given the possibility that he should never have been banned in the first place, to continue to want him blocked no matter what strikes me as an irrational fetish of the rules for the sake of the rules.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to User:B. It is true he was circumventing a ban but notice he was doing it to prove a positive point, not a negative one, i.e. not to defy or disrespect arbcom or their authority, but to prove he was not disruptive as claimed, but a valuable contributor so he could make an appeal to them afterwards. Note he explains his reasons here, that he intended to request for the appeal afterwards, and does so now:. This is not an act of a vandal/defiant rogue element that needs to be stomped out at all costs. Quite the contrary. Each case must be looked at concretely on its own merits so that does not give a green light to just anyone doing this; it goes without saying its risky at best. But intentions seem clear here and I feel intentions do count, even if it was flawed tactically.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * DHeyward's allegation about his real name does not appear to be truthful to me, so I want to respond. First of all, I don't know what his real name is, nor do I care to know. I would never tolerate any harassment of anyone, either. To insinuate that I've done something like that is quite wrong.


 * DHeyward, the only thing I do know is that you have two user names, an old one and the new one. I have provided both before simply so that people know who I'm talking about. The reason for this is because you are known by your old user name more so, such as on the Allegations article, where under your old user name you've blanked sections a lot, edit-warred. I also know you had a block log that is no longer shown with your new account. Your past behaviors there rather poor on that article under the old account; the new user name, though, is clean from those misbehaviors, and gives you a face-lift. I also note you're less aggressive. So that is why I link them, so people know who we are talking about. It has nothing to do with what your real name is.
 * Also, you have never send me a message informing me of the situation, if your old user name was to be mentioned. The only time, and the first time I realized you did not want this displayed is just recently when I provided both user names in my arbcom case. I also know that both user names are not a secret and you specifically requested a change of your user name, not because you were trying to hide your real name because people were harassing you, but because you wanted to have your new user name be your real name--the one that you use now. I refer to this statement of yours about it: . So your claim now makes no sense. I had just assumed you wanted to use your real name, as you stated, or wanted to disassociate your past behaviors linked to your previous user name, or your posts on conservative forums, etc. If you are mischaracterizing what I've done, your allegations against SevenOfDiamonds in the same vein are called into question.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B
I am completely uninvolved in this case and only tangentially followed it. I encourage arbcom to reject it because it would reward circumventing a ban. If a banned user abides by the ban, then apologizes for whatever issues led to their ban, and promises not to repeat their transgressions, then I'm all for second chances. But someone who does not abide by the terms of the ban and gets caught socking should not be permitted to return. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rlevse
Banned means he's not allowed to edit. This is a sock of a banned user. Period. And the ban was partly for socking. Rewarding that behavior is counterproductive. Too much time has been wasted on this user already. Let's not do it again. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to the email situation--While I have no idea what is in the email that was sent to arbcom, the fact remains that SoD intentionally evaded their ban. That is not the sort of behavior we should be rewarding. SoD should have brought this up first, rather than circumventing things and then saying "see I'm not so bad afterall". — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:DHeyward
User:NuclearUmpf published my real name, employer and other personal information. He did it both on and off wiki in a malicious manner. Other editors commenting here have continued to make sure that the stalking continues (notably Giovanni33 and Inclusionist). My employer was contacted because of that. I was cyber stalked because of that. It continues on sites such as WR today. He should not be allowed to return and contribute in any way either as sockpuppets or as himself. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to BTP: I don't know that NU was the one who did the actual harassment. He is the one who published the material that the harassers used.  The only reason to publish that information was to aid the harassment.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * response to Giovanni33: Here's my block log. In total.  Only Tyrenius's block wasn't considered a mistake (I said a 9/11 truther was lying on a user's talk page).  None for the "allegations" article as you seem to not be in command of any factual evidence.  And your claim of ignorance and innocence is not credible either.


 * 2:20, September 24, 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked  with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Defamatory comment after warning)
 * 13:16, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) unblocked ‎ (not)
 * 11:38, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) blocked  with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (vandalism)
 * 18:40, March 27, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) unblocked (after reviewing it appears Tbeatty made only three reverts)
 * 17:01, March 27, 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) unblocked (appears to be an incorrect 3rr block)
 * 19:02, March 26, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) blocked  with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3rr vio at Union of Concerned Scientists)

--DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:William M. Connolley
This is a repeated sock abuser. Reject as a waste of time, and to judge from the state of the G33 case, you're short of time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Guettarda
While I am not familiar with the underlying case, I would challenge Kendrick's assertion that IWS is a "fine" contributor - his behaviour has been problematic for a while. Not ban-worthy in and of itself, but needlessly combative. The suggestion that he has reformed doesn't ring true. Guettarda (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt
The original arb finding that Sevenofdiamonds was Nucularumpf (or whatever) was IMO very weak. The evidence was substantially weaker that the recent evidence regarding Mantanmoreland, which the committee felt was uncompelling. While the harrassment by numf is NOT OK, BY ANY STRETCH, I'm not sure that SoD is the same person. I would ask the committee to review the finding. If appropriate to unban, I think a topic ban on 9-11 and similar conspiracy articles would be appropriate as SoD seemed to struggle with appropriate behavior in that relm (not substantially worse than others, but still). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pokipsy76
I find just incredible that this user was indefinitely banned because arbitrators thought "it is more likely than not" that he was a sockpuppet of another.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I stated at the RFAr case that SevenOfDiamonds would return under a new name anyway since it was pretty obvious that he had already been banned or blocked as NuclearUmph/Zer0faults previously and he has created numerous other socks to evade, edit war and to avoid a 3RR violation. His actions as SevenOfDiamonds in terms of civil discourse also left much to be desired. He has a history of wikistalking his adversaries, posting other's real life information and being a general pain in the arse, frankly. That said, I also stated I was a reluctant participant in the 7OD case orginally precisely since I knew it would be a waste of time overall...as is this nonsense...since he knows fully that he can return anytime he wants and has proven this time and again.--MONGO 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos
Two ideas here - blocking should be preventative, not punitive; and indefinite does not mean infinite. If this editor is capable of working within our norms and improving the encyclopaedia, after time served, I have no problem with his return, although given past activity it may be advisable for ArbCom to either require a notice to be placed on his talk page, or to impose some kind of parole on the offences which brought him to the attention of the community. As per my comments at Poetlister incident, there is no need to revisit the old facts - unblocking now does not say the old offences did not occur or that they weren't serious enough to demand blocking at that time, just as parole from prison on good behaviour does not mean the murder or burglary did not take place. (It may well not have but that's not a decision for us to make here.) Orderinchaos 05:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AuburnPilot
I'd just like to reiterate what I said in the SOD case, that I don't believe SevenOfDiamonds is/was a sock of NuclearUmpf. The evidence presented was cherry-picked, ignored the majority of SOD's contributions, and the case as a whole was an embarrassment (See my comment during the case for more). A productive editor was blocked, not because he was the reincarnation of a banned editor, but because one editor cherry-picked evidence that made it look like he might be. I believe the case should be revisited, and SOD should be allowed to return. Ban him from interacting with certain editors if it you must, but a total ban doesn't make sense. - auburn pilot   talk  01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
Only to get this moving and get a definitive answer from ArbCom on this, I propose the following motion to be voted on:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

is unblocked. He is restricted to one account, and can only change accounts with the explicit approval of the Arbitration Committee. This unblock does not affect the standing of findings of fact or blocks/bans on any other account related to Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

See also the Poetlister approach. ArbCom should finalise this sooner rather than later, if only to quash the ambiguity in the comments below as to the next step forward. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am fully in accord with Rlevse on this issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis of a detailed email that came to the ArbCom, I feel we should look properly at this matter. Assuming a request is posted, I'd vote to accept a case. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The email from user:SevenOfDiamonds is promissing and sincere. Contributions look good. However, the editor should have first contacted the ArbCom for a ban appeal. I am concerned by the RfC started on user:William M. Connolley, the involvement in the user:Giovanni33 ArbCom case, fishing user:Merzbow with CU. I am more concerned by the creation of multiple accounts (are they needed?). I am concerned by all that. A lot of good process is missing in here. We can discuss conditions of return if a proper ban appeal is filed but I don't see the need for one at the moment. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  07:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To user:Kendrick7... The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, I am unconvinced myself that SoD and NuclearUmpf are the same. You can accept IWriteStuff and other accounts' contributions even though they were made under block evasion. However, the fact that SoD put themselves into regular disputes again while using IWriteStuff is unacceptable. I also don't understand the need for creating multiple accounts even tough it is technically legitimate in this case. Yes, it is certainly about time. I prefer SoD do as the butterfly and not count months or days. It'd be about the moment SoD decides to embrace a less combative behavior. I hope it is a fair deal. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  08:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just as soon not reward banned editors for evading their bans. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am far from convinced that SevenOfDiamonds is the same person as NuclearUmpf (the ArbCom, by a vote of 4-1, only ruled that "it is more likely than not"). Moreover the ensuing contributions, though not problem free, have been substantial and constructive. I'm inclined to allow this editor to continue editing, perhaps with restrictions. Paul August &#9742; 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

-