Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop

Proposed principles
Here are a couple of related principles which were strongly passed in previous arbitration rulings.


 * For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. - from Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy and Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2.

- Crockspot 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered subject to the same restrictions regardless of whether they are actually the same person or another individual acting as a proxy for them. - from Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

more....

From WP:AGF: "This page in a nutshell: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. " --Rocksanddirt 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire WP:DR, especially phrases like:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to."

"The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page, you may even post the proposed content on talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and do not mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary."

From WP:VAND" "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated."

--Rocksanddirt 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with applying the WP:SOCK "duck" test here is that so far, we've seen accusations that SoD is a duck, swan, goose, chicken, and quail - the latter several of which have been if not disproven at least shown to be unlikely. I think that to apply the duck test, you either need strong ducky evidence, or good evidence and a particular miscreant to stick it to.
 * The specifics of the NuclearUmph allegation are more focused, but I don't think it's a duck test case. Georgewilliamherbert 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If the similarity between the users is engaging in the same disruptive behavior, then I have no problem with applying the same remedies. Yet the accusation in this case is less that Seven has been acting in a banworthy way and more that similar behavioral tics give him away as being a banned user. If he's been acting disruptive, bring him up for that disruption. If not, all we've got is innuendo and running a campaign to pin something on an otherwise good user should itself be considered disruption. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk
I guess all these people who are working to figure out what banned editor you are have nothing better to do? Sure, each individual piece of evidence I presented equals nothing...it is the preponderance of evidence that makes the connection. I can't manipulate the diffs...they are in the history.--MONGO 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all those editors you edit alongside, TBeatty, Aude, etc. I am sure they do have better things to do, however you are the only one gathering your cherry picked evidence. Preponderance of "commonly misspelled words," ones you claim I often misspell, when I present more examples of spelling it correctly, ones not shared between myself, Nuclear and zer0, showing there is no common link. Those similarities like we all sometimes may or may not wikilink policy. The "they all edit during the day time," since we are on the same coast. They edit 9/11 articles, which I pointed out over 7 editors in 5 of 250 blocks doing the same in only the last 3 months in only my ISP, in only my region, in only anonymous edits. The preponderance of evidence? I guess when "says welcome" and "uses an edit summary of "typo" when he corrects a typo," is your evidence, its easy to amass a preponderance of it. Your evidence lacks substance. lacks links between all 3 accounts, and relies on "commonly misspelled words," "commonly used edit summaries," and that both users have a common editing time, called day time. Then ignore the evidence you presented yourself that was incorrect, spikes in editing, lack of spikes at times, lack of shared articles, shared interests, etc. A preponderance of typo's is how to summarize your "evidence." This is the last bait I take, like I said, your need to constantly state you are right, shows plenty itself, because if Arbcom says you are wrong, you will most likely be cited for your attacks and harassment, probably why you didnt want to goto Arbcom in the first place. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same collection of editors that NuclearUmpf had disagreements with. My evidence isn't "summarized" by the typos you make...it is summarized by the specific quirks that you have when using different accounts. It is odd to see you repeatedly claim that I am somehow in control of those that filed checkuser request on you or that I am in control of other editors...odd, since NuclearUmpf made such similar comments back in January......surely, many of these things I have as evidence such as typos and other individual items equal nothing on their own, but when they are all correlated, the chances of you and NuclearUmpf being two different editors drops to near zero. I see no chance that two different editors would both edit the obscure template about 9/11 conspiracy theories adding an article about a rapper group that the other one had edited and both be from the same section of New York City and both be so facinated with the State terrorism by the U.S. article and both have spikes and editing periods that are identical and both be using the same shared phrases such as "chest beating", using XYZ, commenting "go play somewhere" and argue, deliberately, by way of wikistalking, with the exact same collection of editors. I didn't want an arbitration case because after taking my evidence to arbcom enforcement and no solution was reached...I entended to drop it, and aside from a couple of respones to your neverending misrepresentations about me at AN/I and elsewhere, Theresa Knott and others felt this should be an arbcom matter. As far as I am concerned, I do hope they look over all the evidence, both yours and mine. Those checkusers were run on you because everyone with an eyeball for details knew you were not a new editor and that you were engaging in edit warring and being generally offensive by removing warnings from admins and provoking everyone you disagreed with.--MONGO 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said thatIP edit was most likely not mine, considering the 1 month lap in editing, your own evidence says Nuclear was editing in February yet you attribute that edit to me, to an anonymous IP, yet you say he had an account. I have a problem with Aude? Not really, I asked them not to take sides without discussing with me, thats not a problem. I have a problem with TBeatty? We do not even edit the same article, odd how someone always at your side however, someone I do not edit any articles with except one, is filing RFCU's against me. Odd how you stated you believed I was 5 other users, and I was RFCU's against 5 other users by your "co-editors." Yet of course you never filed initiated or asked for any RFCU to be placed, its all coincidences. I already pointed out 1/3 of all "go play somewhere" remarks on the internet (thanks to google) do not end in "else." As for misrepresentations of you, I did not file any AN/I reports beyond 1, so it seems you are the mischaracterizing the situation. Like when you stated I had a problem with Tom, yet I pointed out numerous times I tried to help Tom and complimented him. Your grasping at a single time I removed his post ignoring the 5 times I posted on his page to work with him on sections, makes your evidence look silly. Also like when you stated I filed a RfC against you, when I did not. You categorizing me having a problem with Aude, when I simply asked them to discuss accusations with me, again show how desperatly you are grasping at straws. You ignoring the math when presented to you by SOHPIA, further shows your confirmation bias and a clear example of chasing Mortons Demon. Also if you have not noticed I do not edit many templates, and as I pointed out there are many many people editing 9/11 and terrorism related articles in NYC under RoadRunner in my area in just the last 3 months in only 5 of 250 blocks checked. Keep grasping at straws. Was Nuclear even on Roadrunner? Just to point out the admin you say I removed the message from was Tom Harisson, how many articles do you two edit together? Would I be able to find any examples of Tom coming to your aide in a particularly high volume? I do not need your friends, no matter how much I respect them, to appear on my page and give shallow threats on your behalf. Also as I pointed out, its odd how those tell tale signs do not exist between all accounts, even though you claim they are "tell-tale" signs. That is something a scientific method would gasp over. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You admitted that that IP was yours.... and you used to edit the 9/11 Truth Movement article and then the 7 World Trade Center article and then the State terrorism article all after adding the names of rapper groups to the template...and there are no edits to Wikipedia made by that IP prior to the two edits to the template. I am amazed by the responses you keep coming up with. Unless you knew Tom Harrison from previous disputes, why you would summarily remove the warnings he posted...you had no call at that point to fault him as you seem to now, an administrator in excellent standing. I do know that your very long two part analysis of my evidence is not the behavior I would expect to see from an innocent party...it looks manufactured, as if to win an argument, not prove your innocence. The innocent don't come up with long winded retorts...their answers are brief and succinct.--MONGO 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits while I had the account were obviously mine. I cannot admit to all past and future edits from it. Even in that admission I doubted if those were mine and why. As I stated over 1 month of not editing is not possible, and it would be pretty rare for an IP to come back to me. I also do not remember ever editing that article. Care to give your IP so we can see if it ever edited Wikipedia, or your block? This would be a good comparison for you as well as personal on why your connection is faulty. I address the issue in the IP Fallacy statement I made. In my block alone are 7 other editors, on top of that in examining 5 blocks, I found over 7 users with interest in the same topics as Nuclear. You seem to ignore this, no surprise. This was garnered from just the last 3 months, from only Roadrunner IP blocks, to only articles related to 9/11 and terrorism, to only New York area, excluding 1 borough (Staten Island). So in editing just 2% of the total hits I found the same similarities to 8 other editors, the same you find as definitive proof. I already addressed why I removed Tom's comments, I did know him. He participated on the state terrorism page and the AfD, or are you ignoring that as well? I am sure you are, you seem to ignore everything that does not fit in your box. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing a paragraph attacking someone and an entire page dedicated to faulty links, then complaining they take long to shoot down your absurd proof? Sounds like you are afraid of the counter-evidence and the taking apart of your evidence. I am sure you would like nothing more then for me to say "I am not guilty," and pose no counter proof to your faulty links, wouldn't that make your evidence look believable. I guess it would be nice if I never went to Wikiscanner to show how many users under my IP block edited Wikipedia in just the last month, or how many edit 9/11 articles. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one piece of my evidence is proof of anything...the collection of comparative pieces equals the sum total. If you are not banned as a sock of banned editor NuclearUmpf then you are not banned....I really don't care one way or the other anymore.--MONGO 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sum of evidence says I am AuburnPilot, perhaps because the evidence is "common misspellings," "commonly used edit summaries," "articles commonly edited by New Yorkers," and the best of all "editing during the day time on the east coast." --SevenOfDiamonds 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have omitted a lot of the other evidence and I don't recall even bringing that editor into the discussion in my evidence page. I never stated that these articles are commonly edited by New Yorkers...why would you misquote me on that? I don't see involvement in the State terroism by the U.S. article by AuburnPilot...I see lots and lots of contributions there by you and Nuclear though...in fact, more than any other two editors. You pick apart each piece of evidence, but what your counter argument completely fails to explain is why all the pieces combined all lead to only one conclusion. The evidence is a sum of it's parts, not part of it's sum.--MONGO 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AuburnPilot explained to you, on the Arbitration Enforcement page, that myself, Nuclear and Auburn all share the same edit summaries and misspellings that you quoted as definitive proof. I guess we can just ignore that, in fact if Auburn lived in NYC. They would match all of your evidence except participation on the State Terrorism page, however they have other links, having have edited articles on music artists and other pop culture issues. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All those same issues that led to me being Fairness and Rootology, and Giovanni33, and Bmedley, and Lovelight, and now Rex and Nuclear. I am sure. You also once again glaze over my difference of views with Nuclear on those issues. The amazing thing is on the Workshop page you try to link us with similar interests and views. So much like the issue of linking policy, myself and Nuclear either do or do not agree with the war, we either do or do not think the state terrorism page should exist, we either do or do not ... sounds convincing. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you agree with the war in Iraq or not...Nuclear agreed with it and apparently, you do as well I think invading Afghanistan and Iraq was the way to go...but above you seem state that you and he are on opposite sides of that debate.--MONGO 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing Saddam, as I said. I do not agree with an occupation, nor with the dragged out war. As time goes on we learn valuable things, just two weeks ago it was all over YouTube, video of Cheney stating invading Iraq would be a quagmire. He stated this years ago, makes you wonder why we are there. Makes you wonder why we stay. My guess from how often Nuclear edited pages relating to it seemed to hint they were in favor of it, was he/she? You seem to know him better than myself. I am not digging through anymore of his edits to find out. You can attempt to take a very complex situation, an invasion, toppling of a government, removing of a dictator, the ensuing terrorism and its related insurgency as well as the ineffective government put into place afterwards mixed with the American occupation and "surge" practice and make it a support or do not support issue. If you want to know more about my stance, my talk page is open. Here is a quick run down. 1) Occupation, do not support 2) Initial invasion, On the fence, securing the oil ministry ... the invasion did not have to lead to any of the following per the first invasion 3) Removing of Saddam, support 4) Disbanding the government, do not support, obviously not an intelligent decision 5) Disbanding the military, another flawed idea 6) Attempting to keep peace in neighborhoods with a temporary surge, do not support 7) Electing an ineffective government, do not support 8) Splitting Iraq into pieces, should be considered 9) Growth of terrorism stemming from the invasion, obviously do not support. Let me know if I missing anything. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You continue to pick at individual pieces, but again those individual pieces are meaningless...it the sum totality of those individual pieces that make the case. I have no doubt you have changed your tune on certain specific political issues such as U.S. state sponsorship of terrorism...many people do. The fact is, many requests were filed on you at checkuser because a number of editors found your to be a problematic editor and a possible ban evader. I certainly don;t control what those editors think or do and all I did was comment based on early suspicions...those suspicions were long before I started to work on my current evidence.--MONGO 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So your evidence is that we have similar politics, yet different, that is pretty good evidence. So are we back to "I had no invovlement in the other RFCU's"? You should pick one. Better yet, while this is entertaining and you keep digging more holes for yourself. I will let Arbcom review the information you provided, and the counter I did. And of course your behavior. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still...you select individual pieces and can't explain why the sum of those pieces equals only one thing. And that is correct, I never took my evidence to checkuser, nor were any of those checkusers that were requested asked to to examine if you were NuclearUmpf. The prior checkusers and your attempt to connect that to harassment on my part is interesting, but inaccurate.--MONGO 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you are referring to. I already noted that if AuburnPilot lived in NYC they would match all of your "evidence" and then have more to add such as editing pop culture articles like Zer0 did. As well as editing Hip-hop related articles like Nuclear and zer0 did. Which is why shallow evidence choosing commonly used summaries, misspelled words, editing times, etc. Without showing common interests (9/11 for New Yorkers, thats damning), common view point etc. is baseless. The fact you are even willing to negate the fact that I participate on an article Nuclear attempted to delete, am indifferent about a section he wanted removed, shows you are willing to accept anything as evidence. As noted. Your evidence consists partially of even worse statements than commonalities such as, has some but not all of the same views on politics, sometimes, though not always wikilinks policy ... those are some pretty thin straws. Confirmation bias, Mortons Demon in particular would be of interest for you to read. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requests
I never once filed a single checkuser request. The first checkuser request, initiated by EvilSpartan...my involvement consisted of this exchange before he filed the request in which all I did was make one comment. The second one was initiated by Aude here...the third one opened by EvilSpartan here, where I made one comment on the associated talk page where I stated that Diamonds "may very well be banned editors Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) or Fairness And Accuracy For All"...and the forth one filed by Tbeatty, I had zero involvement in ...all these, aside from the last one, were filed long prior to my evidence compilation that Diamonds is NuclearUmpf, and Tbeatty did not know that I had already started working on that evidence. Multiple checkuser requests are indicative of a problematic editor, not some sort of Cabal.--MONGO 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if your constant mentioning of a "cabal" as some dark sinister force is suppose to be taken as an over exageration or joke, or if some way of biasing people against me, as if I made that accusation. You also stated I was making a conspiracy theory when I quoted your own words. Since you want to state this in multiple places I will defend in it in those. I never stated their was a cabal. Aude already admitted it was your evidence that caused them to file a checkuser, also their checkuser consisted solely of your interpretation. You have already stated "My direct involvement in those checkusers was minimal. I suggested a number of others who had similar POV's" If you are suggesting the people, they were surely not independent. By suggesting the people, the checkusers were done against those you suggested, sounds loopy I know, but to claim they were not you filing is a pretty big technicality, if people are filing your beliefs. All people you are close with at that, some I do not edit articles with or have much participation with. Again, far from independent, and far from the "no involvement" previous story. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)