Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence

NuclearUmpf / Zer0faults connection
Let's examine the logic of a statement made by SevenOfDiamonds on the evidence page regarding the and  accounts:

"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."

SevenOfDiamonds is claiming that "tell-tale signs" that MONGO alleges connect SOD to NuclearUmpf do not exist for Zer0faults. Since there is no dispute that NuclearUmpf and Zer0faults are the same user, SOD claims that this weakens the connection between himself and NuclearUmpf.

There are only three possible explanations for Zer0faults not sharing the tell-tale signs with NuclearUmpf:
 * 1) Zer0faults isn't NuclearUmpf
 * 2) Zer0faults is NuclearUmpf and shares his editing pattern (and SOD is mistaken about them not sharing "tell-tale signs")
 * 3) Zer0faults is NuclearUmpf, but changed his editing pattern

Of these possibilities, we can eliminate the first because the link between Zer0 and Nuclear has already been confirmed. The second is simply the current situation, where there is an alleged connection between SOD and NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults. I haven't done an extensive investigation of the contributions of NuclearUmpf and Zer0faults, so I'm unsure how different their editing patterns are. The third possibility actually increases (IMO) the chance that SOD is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf because it shows that Nuclear can and will change his editing pattern when switching between accounts. Chaz Beckett 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This ignores the obvious possibility. Nuclear/Zer0 are the same and I am neither. If Zer0 could change his editing style, why not do it when he switched to Nuclear? Why not do it again when he switched to myself as claimed? The editing change happened from zer0->Nuclear yet not from Nuclear->myself? That makes little sense. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's possibility #2 above. You claimed in your statement that "Quirks and misspellings would carry over to all accounts", which isn't true since we know that Nuclear is Zero. Chaz Beckett 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is my point, if these were "tell-tale" signs, misspellings, signs of commonality, then they would be present between all. The same thing which links animals in a species, are present through all, you do not link a common leg to one and then link another to one of those with a common arm. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at Nuclear and zer0 you will see the same issues. 9/11, wars, rap music. If by editing style you refer to misspellings etc. You are then stating zer0 spelled the words correctly, Nuclear purposefully spells them wrong, and I spell them wrong sometimes. For articles in common, other then 9/11 articles they do not exist, so you are stating here that zer0 switched to Nuclear, did not change the articles he is interested in, then decided to change them when switching to myself? You are claiming a switch happens at various points and that Nuclear spelled words wrong on purpose then ... That makes little sense. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not claiming anything other than that there are only the three possibilities listed above. Which one do you believe is correct? Chaz Beckett 14:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitrarily limiting the options to ignore a possibility. So you have an option Chaz, you are either a communist spy, or facist one. Which do you pick? I mean you have to pick one. See the flaw? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then suggest a possibility that I didn't include above. In your evidence (included at the top) you state that the tell-tale signs "...why are not many shared between zer0 and Nuclear?" Do you believe that these two account share tell-tale signs or not? You seem to be arguing in circles. Chaz Beckett 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's simplify even further:
 * Do you believe Nuclear and Zer0 are the same user?
 * Do you believe Nuclear and Zer0 share "tell-tale signs" in their editing?
 * Chaz Beckett 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not tell you, what was used to say they were the same person? Did they say they were? Did they go through a RFCU? Where is the evidence if it was not self admitted? I do not have the tools at my disposal or resources to tell you if they did. MONGO and Pro have gone through all of their edit histories, they can tell you better. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-admitted, see this edit. There was never any dispute that these were the same user. Chaz Beckett 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the above is flawed: 1 Only the state terrorism article. The topic of 9/11, apparently not the articles however.

2 Only one term is given, not much to compare.

3 My summaries are short, zer0 did not write any and Nuclears were long.


 * You're again arguing in circles. I posed two very simple questions above. Chaz Beckett 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not ask two simple questions, you asked a question that has no valid answer by leaving out any question that allows me to be innocent. The one I already gave you. When you answer if you are a communist or fascist I will answer your question. Since asking question with only guilty answers is silly. I did not compile the evidence, I could not tell you if they had issues in common nor will I spend days manually clicking through edits to find out. I have already scoured Nuclears to prove half of the items mentioned by MONGO are lies or false. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The three possibilities say nothing about your link to either Nuclear or Zero. They only describe the link (or lack thereof) between Nuclear and Zero. The two questions are simple. You were the one that stated that many tell-tale signs weren't shared between Nuclear and Zero. Do you still stand by this statement? If you believe there are additional possibilites to the 3 I listed above, what are they? Chaz Beckett 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never claimed he did. You did. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You stated "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." If this isn't what you meant. then please clarify what you meant by your statement listed at the top of this page . Chaz Beckett 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are just reading it wrong. Is MONGO not attempting to show commonalities in editing style that are suppose to be unique to an editor? If he is, then shouldn't they be consistent across the board? --SevenOfDiamonds 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading it wrong, then would you be able to clarify it for me? Specifically, what did you mean by "I cannot be alleged to be Nuclear and yet not zer0? Chaz Beckett 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the problem with understanding this? MONGO, not myself, claims my editing style, the words I spell wrong, my interests, my politics etc. are the same as Nuclear, but shows no link to Zer0. If these "commonalities" such as using typo for an edit summary are proof, then they would exist within zer0 as well. You, Chaz then proposed that zer0 could have changed his editing habits, changing those items that are in common between himself and Nuclear, ignoring the obvious, he would then obviously change again? no? So you think zer0 can change his tell tale signs, then decides to come back and not change them? You are logically making little sense in your above statements. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm actually making perfect sense and have posed several very simple questions, which you've going to great lengths to avoid. Your evasion has me more convinced than ever that you're NuclaerUmpf/Zer0Faults, so I'm going to disengage now. Thanks for the help. Chaz Beckett 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am Nuclear because I cannot tell you if they had things in common. Isn't that a great incite to the logic being used. So Chaz can you tell me if they do? Probably not, guess that means you are also Nuclear. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are also not addressing my point it seems. If zer0 changed his editing style as your claim, then why not change it again from Nuclear -> myself, since editing style is what is attempting to be used to link me. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I only stated that Zero changing his editing style was 1 of 3 possibilities. Chaz Beckett 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am addressing why your "statements" do not make sense. If he did, why not do it again? If he can, MONGO wouldn't be able to have a page highlighting what he feels are similarities, which is really just a list of common things on Wikipedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The question at hand is not that hard: You do or do not believe that Nuclear and Zero share tell-tale editing styles? If you'll answer this, I'll agree to hypothesize users' actions. Chaz Beckett 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot answer what I do not know. Care to share some of these tools people are using to download and scour the entire edit history of a user? If you do I can let one run and let you know what I find. The whole purpose of why we are here is because MONGO claims to have found commonalities between myself (the real world editor) and another editor (whoever Nuclear is) to state we are the same person. These items such as typos, and habits are suppose to prove beyond doubt we are the same person in real life. If that is the case then those same signs, much like hand writing style, or vocal recognition should be present in all manifestations of that person. If you say Zer0 = Nuclear, Nuclear = Seven (myself), but zer0 does not equal Seven, then you are logically wrong. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)