Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Diogotome


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. BD2412 T 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Diogotome
Attack page created by Cirt; user page as it stands is false, deceiving, and worse: as Diogotome has made no edits on Wikiquote, his page should not have been created in the first place, and should be deleted.

Disclosure: My brother uploaded to Commons. In that picture, you can see me and him (we're twin brothers). After Cirt nominated that picture for deletion, I sent him an email. In that email, I told him that Diogotome had already sent an email to Arbcom, over a week ago, with proof of his identity, including his Citizen Card (showing his real name: Diogo Tomé), and other kinds of evidence. It was that way that Cirt discovered, by me, that we obviously edit from the same house (we live in the same house, so our IPs are about the same). So Cirt took that chance and requested a SPI (sock puppet investigation) against me, claiming that Diogotome is my "sock", a fabricated falsehood. In that investigation, Cirt was spectacularly dishonest, as he never ever mentioned said email to ArbCom, nor that it was already known that we edit from the same house (we have never hidden it, not to mention we use our real names), so it was trivially true that our IPs were the same, knowing we live in the same house. I myself emailed some "investigators" with evidence, including Citizen Card, but they too didn't care about any evidence and allowed the other investigators to say that the accounts were "related". Again, that was trivially true and expected. Although Cirt and his administrator friends tagged my brother's account as a "sock", the only thing the investigation actually showed is that we edit from the same house, and for that you didn't need an investigation, you could have just read either my brother's email to ArbCom, or my email to Cirt or to other administrators all sent before that ridiculous "investigation" even started. So its "discoveries" were unsurprising, expected, and trivial.

You don't have to take my word for it: my brother created his "Diogotome" account in 2009 (i.e., many years before I even knew people could edit Wikipedia), and for it he used his email. He gives me permission to share it: diogofact@hotmail.com. All this has been confirmed, and can be confirmed, by any admin. Now use that email and go to Facebook, and see who he is: Diogo Tomé. (He is not shy, say hello to him and ask him about this.) He used his account to create this article on Portuguese wikipedia. It was around that time, towards the end of 2012, that I created my account also with my real name, "Daniel Tomé" (later renamed to "DanielTom" by BD2412), as I was already editing Wikiquote as an IP for a few months. The email I used to create my account was danielfacto@gmail.com (pretty much the same email I use everywhereelse), and if you again go to Facebook, you can meet me there, Daniel Tomé, and my other family members as well (even more evidence ). Note how I actually presented evidence, even if very personal, as opposed to baseless speculations. Again, note how neither of us are ever afraid to show our IPs, how my brother has his account since 2009 (supposedly, we are expected to believe I created it "sock" so way back then, so many years ago, thinking to use it now), and how we use our real names, never hiding them. When instead of speculations you are open to evidence and truth, it becomes obvious that these malicious sockpuppetry accusations are not only baseless, they are absurd.

Good news: even if you ignore all the evidence, even if User:Diogotome is indeed my "sockpuppet" (and it isn't), even if all those lies were true... it wouldn't matter. The account User:Diogotome should still be deleted here on WQ, as it was not created by the user nor did it have any edits here. It has zero edits on Wikiquote. The only purpose of that page is to attack me. It makes no sense to create that userpage here, but not also on Meta, Wikibooks, Wikinews, or on any other place where the user made no edits at all. So as a summary I ask you to consider the only two alternatives: 1) the truth is, Diogotome is not my sockpuppet, it has zero edits here, and should be deleted; 2) even if it was true that Diogotome was my sockpuppet (and it isn't), we should still delete it, because it only constitutes an obvious attack page, and it has zero edits here.

This is obviously an issue that I care about, and I ask your consideration. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 01:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. It has no use for Wikiquote, and it has zero edits here. This user page only serves as an attack page against people with real names/reputation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, crosswiki sock issue. User:Diogotome sock account is globally locked due to the crosswiki sock issue.
 * 1) Curiously, the "Diogotome" account has only been used for w:WP:SPA purposes and personal attacks, see, the earliest contribution by the account is 4 June 2013, wow, what a coincidence!!!
 * 2) Sock account User:Diogotome is globally locked for the crosswiki sock issue:.
 * 3) DanielTom account blocked at Wikimedia Commons for email abuse:.
 * 4) Block log on en.wikipedia includes multiple different problems:.
 * 5) See also Checkuser block:
 * 6) Blocks by multiple admins including Prodego and Toddst1:.
 * 7) English Wikipedia sock investigation filed by admin Toddst1:.
 * Apparently Cirt didn't bother reading my nomination at all. Brief replies to his points as follows:
 * 1) That was not his "earliest contribution". Did you see the article he created on Portuguese Wikipedia on 6 October 2012?
 * 2) I already said it was blocked. But on Wikiquote he has zero edits, so you can't come here and create its user page yourself to spread your lies, just because you want to attack me.
 * 3) Irrelevant (ridiculous block, but still irrelevant).
 * 4) Irrelevant. (Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean anything.)
 * 5) Blocking my account "Daniel Tomé" as a "sock" is so ridiculous that it merits no comment (it was a public rename, as everyone knows). You also did it yourself, and it hurts your credibility.
 * 6) Again, irrelevant. (Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean anything.)
 * 7) English Wikipedia sock investigation dishonestly requested by Cirt, as explained in the nomination. Diff.
 * Diogotome has 0 (zero) edits on Wikiquote, and his user page here created by you, Cirt, shouldn't have been created in the first place, so it should be deleted; you only created it here to spread lies and to attack me, as was made evident, above. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are asked by to believe that the account "Diogotome" is benign &mdash; and yet the account made a total of seven (7) edits in October 2012  &mdash; then nothing for over seven months &mdash;
 * Then the account comes back in June 2013 to make personal attacks and get blocked by multiple different admins for "NPA, SPA" and "sock".
 * That seems like quite a lot to swallow.
 * Either the "Diogotome" account is a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet acting at the direction of the account.
 * How else would the "Diogotome" account even know what is going on with the "DanielTom" account during the sock investigation and know how and where and when to show up?
 * Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cirt is still confused:
 * 1) First, I never asked anyone to "believe that the account Diogotome is benign". He could be the biggest douche in the universe, that would still not matter. What I am saying is that given the fact that he has made 0 edits here on Wikiquote, you are not entitled to create a user page here yourself just to attack/spread lies about me. Second, we are not discussing if my brother should use his account to edit so more often. I know he used his account to create an article about one of his professors because of a college bet, and he needed his name to show that it was him creating the article. In any case, all that is irrelevant to this proposal.
 * 2) Again, irrelevant. Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia. what does that have to do with anything?
 * 3) I'm not asking anyone to "swallow" anything. Is it hard to swallow that your previous account was blocked numerous times on Wikipedia for repeated edit warring? The Diogotome account was already globally locked (much thanks to your deliberate dishonesty), but that doesn't mean you are entitled to come here on Wikiquote and create an attack page; as explained above, that user has zero edits on Wikiquote, and you should not have created his user page here in the first place.
 * 4) Or you could actually stop making baseless accusations and see the evidence presented, above (have you read the nomination statement at all?). And even if Diogotome was a "sockpuppet" (untrue) or a "meatpuppet" (also untrue), that has nothing to do with Wikiquote, as he has zero edits on WQ. Your speculations do not entitle you to create a useless user page here that only serves to spread lies and to attack me.
 * 5) Obviously I tell my brother what is happening, not to mention that he understands how Wikipedia works probably better than you or me (he is no newbie, he registered his account in 2009). Anyway, I do not see how your personal curiosity has anything to do with this vote for deletion.
 * Again, none of Cirt's speculations have any merit nor relevance to this discussion. The user page Cirt created only serves to spread lies, the user has zero edits here, so this attack page is of no use to Wikiquote, and should be deleted. Cirt should stop importing problems from other projects to Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Revealing quote from : "Obviously I tell my brother what is happening".
 * This is a tacit acknowledgement of violation of meatpuppetry by.
 * Meatpuppetry is defined as this prohibition: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate."
 * Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I tell my brother "what is happening" (e.g. that you are a dishonest jerk spreading lies about him), not what to do. My brother doesn't take orders from me, what do you think he is, 10 years old?
 * 2) When are you going to stop being so dishonest, Cirt? It gets tiring after a while.
 * 3) And that is exactly what I've never done. You need to tell us in which "debate" my brother has ever supported me (not to mention that you would also have to show his support was "recruited" by me, but ignore that). Diffs would be nice, although you won't be able to provide them, because we have never edited in the same discussion, so you should retract your baseless accusation. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew you would do that, Cirt, because you are such a deliberately dishonest troll. So tell me, in which "debate" did my brother ever support me? Diffs please, or retract your baseless accusation. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Prodego already explained all this, on the sock account's sock user talk page, Prodego: "When your first edit on Wikipedia is to the Administrator's Noticeboard making negative remarks about another editor, you will be blocked. This is not behavior consistent with a new editor, which means this is not your main account, and since it is being used nefariously this means it is a sockpuppet SPA.". -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that it wasn't his "first edit on Wikipedia". Again, did you miss the article he created on Portuguese Wikipedia in 2012? Come on, Cirt, don't try to be evasive. Provide diffs of actual debates where me and him have both participated together, where he has "supported" me. You won't be able to do it, of course, to your embarrassment. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting from admin Toddst1: "On 25 May 2013, DanielTom posted his supposed farewell on his talk page. Diogotome was indefinitely blocked on June 4 2013 by Prodego for "NPA, SPA"" Therefore, the "Diogotome" account was likely used after the "DanielTom" account had "posted his supposed farewell". Of course, note the "supposed", in the evidence compiled by admin Toddst1. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find as many quotes from your friends as you like, Cirt, but you can't dodge the issue. I'm going to repeat my question, as you ignored it really. Provide diffs of actual debates where me and him have both participated together, where he has "supported" me. (You won't be able to do it, of course, to your embarrassment.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sockmaster account posts a supposed "farewell". The sock account then picks up right where the sockmaster account left off, with similar behavior patterns, as noted by admins Prodego and Toddst1 . The sock is in effect proxying for the sockmaster in this case study. It's really quite simple, and textbook socking behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my post on 25 May, so what? At that time I told my brother I didn't care about Wikipedia anymore, and he started reading my posts. It is not my fault that he decided to finally make a comment 10 days later. Anyway, how is that "sockpuppetry"? Did I create a "sock" in 2009 just so I could make that silly comment in 2013? It makes no sense. I note how you retract your "meatpuppet" accusation and go back to the sock one. There is no consistency in your arguments whatsoever, Cirt, you just throw away your speculations at will. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are valid. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are routinely blocked just the same. Both are policy violations. -- Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the meatpuppet one is valid, since my brother is at my side here influencing how I should reply. He says this is similar to him being sentenced to life for beating his wife: when he finally proves that he has never beaten his wife, you come along and say, "it doesn't matter because you have been cheating on her too". There is no end to your game. We should have had this conversation at the SPI on Wikipedia, where you withhold important information from your admin-friends, and not here. You decided to bring these problems to Wikiquote, just to attack me, and that was uncalled for. Wikiquote doesn't need these imaginary problems. You never seem to edit any articles here, and can't think of anything more productive to do with your time, and I think that's unfortunate (both to you, and to Wikiquote). You created a user page for an editor with zero edits here, and originated all this unnecessary drama that you seem to enjoy, but I propose it's time to end it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Sockpuppet or not, an administrator should not without consent create mirror users from one Wikisite to another (If I understand correctly, this is what happened). --Spannerjam (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly out of scope.  If there is no user of that name on this site, the page must be regarded as being in main space, and since it has no quotes, it should be speedily deleted.--Abramsky (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a point of clarification – Although there have been no edits from the account at Wikiquote, this is a registered account created by the SUL account holder when he logged in and visited this wiki on 4 June 2013. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, he never visited this wiki, he just unified his login. (Not sure about that link. Did he also visit, e.g., the Italian wiki on June 8? I find that hard to believe.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you know every place someone else browsed the web, unless you are the NSA? I was all set to !vote for deletion, but your remark casts doubt on the proposition that it is actually an independent account. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked him, obviously. I went to great pains to show how Diogotome is my brother's account, created in 2009, with my brother's email, same email of his Facebook account. (I don't know what "NSA" actually means.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (I was referring to the (US) National Security Agency, whose monitoring of internet and telephone activity is currently in the news quite a lot on this side of the pond.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Spannerjam, and earlier discussion about this practice here and here. -- Mdd (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)