http://forevergeek.com/geek_articles/digg_army_right_in_line.php
This blogger shows how 2 articles came to Digg's frontpage today. I tried to post the link on Digg and my account was disabled.
http://diggabused.googlepages.com/submitted.png (You won't find that article anymore)
then http://diggabused.googlepages.com/disabled.png

What is the link for the second story mentioned in the first article?
Also, are you sure your account has been removed just for pointing to that story? It's kind of hard to believe...

You see , the second URL is : http://digg.com/technology/A_List_Apart:_A_More_Accessible_Map
And you can see in the screenshots the users who dugg it.
I think Kevin Rose has even undugg it by now, so he stays out of it.

I had the account "ramibotros" on digg. Here is the Google Cache to proove it:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:NBw_WHnivnQJ:digg.com/users/ramibotros+ramibotros+digg&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
I even had you as a friend, but google didn't get to cache that.

Now i'm http://digg.com/users/ramibotros invalid. I can't log in neither.
Tell me, how can I remove my account? Kevin Rose did it. Tell me, why should Kevin Rose undigg two articles he's dugg? (as you can see in the screenshots)

I still see Kevin Rose on both articles, so I can't confirm your story from here...

Yea he's there again. But i think the screenshots are enough to confirm "my story" If you check http://forevergeek.com/geek_articles/digg_army_right_in_line.php
   again now, there is another user whose account was disabled. It is quite easy, go create a new account, post a link to this page and entitle it "Digg abused!" and they'll disable the account right away. They say accusing another user of abusing is abusing.

> They say accusing another user of abusing is abusing.

Where do they say this?

but who are "they" ???

My account got banned so emailed abusedigg.com asking them about why they banned it. (The other commenter on the website did the same) they replied:
--------------
Dear Sir,

Your account was suspended for violating digg Terms Of Use. Accusing
users of abusing digg. You have no right to accuse any user of digg
based on false facts. We have more then 250.000 users on digg that
contribute to digg. If 50 users dugg the same story from the same user
at the same time and you believe it's abuse, then you are more then
welcome to email us and we'll do our best to investigate it and not
publicly accuse digg users. We'll unban your account if you agree not to
do this again.

For more information visit: http://digg.com/tos

-The Digg Watch Team.
-----------------
Maybe they're right, but who is gonna react about the abusing that happened in both articles?

Followup: http://forevergeek.com/news/digg_corrupted_editors_playground_not_userdriven_website.php

Yea , i hope Philipp now believes me (after reading the follow-up)

Maybe a shoutwire article could get it a little bit famous: http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/10322/Kevin_Rose_abusing_Digg

I do agree the similarity between http://digg.com/security/A_List_Apart:_Community_Creators,_Secure_Your_Code_ and http://digg.com/technology/A_List_Apart:_A_More_Accessible_Map is suspicious

Suspicious? Its blatant!

It's not so much about me believing it, but me trying to find proof (and my own believes are never proof enough).

OK. I made a blog post about it and dugg it (because I couldn't submit ForeverGeek), the digg story has just vanished within 5 minutes. No mention of it anywhere. http://digg.com/technology/Suspicious_Digging_

Oh and interestingly the link above says 'That item was not found'. Whereas this says nothing http://digg.com/technology/f000000000000000barrrrrrrrrrrr

Isn't this enough proof Philipp? :)

The two stories dugg to the front page – first 16 diggs identical for both? I refuse to believe that is just 'coincidence'

Please be kind and rate the second comment here (by manchild): http://digg.com/links/How_Evil_Are_You_

Excellent point splash on the not found thing... I can't find any normal reason that would happen, only... suspicious reasons. Here is an interesting little analysis on the digging of people...

http://www.zippitydoodahonline.com/?p=10

Strangely enough, Kevin Rose dugg over 50% of these stories submitted by these people, within the first 24 diggs, that made the front page. How can anyone ignore that proof?

I think the banning of these accounts is more to hide the proof of his involvement, then because they were guilty.

Hi! Guys how you manage to make such perfect sites? Good fellows!

Perfect site! Anything superfluous, all is laconic and beautiful. Thanks!

I think its cute that you guys believe that server admins would use the actual Digg mechanism to promote stories. If I owned that website and wanted to push one of my own articles up to the top, I'd just do it serverside within the mySQL database. Heck, I could even make it look like all of you dugg the article, or if I really wanted to do this thing subrosa, then maybe I could just pull diggs from a series of random user accounts that hadn't be used for several weeks (maybe even conjour up some out of thin air, assign some random historical diggs to the accounts, etc.).

Either way and I'm sorry that this probably goes against the prevailing opinion, but this whole finger pointing, conspiracy theory thing is naive. If Kevin Rose and his development staff was really behind this whole "scandal", then it certainly wouldn't have been executedin a way that we, as Digg users, would ever be aware.

-tritium