User:SevenOfDiamonds/Arbcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] History with MONGO

MONGO's first post to me on my talk page consisted of: Do not ever again revert my comments[1]. The comment in question was "Good luck to you on that. The diffs showing that you are a POV pushing WP:SPA are, well, all the diffs." [2]

After this interaction I began to follow some of MONGO's edits, worried that he treats other editors in this manner. MONGO began compiling a "case" against me in their user space. I noticed they were participating in a AfD based on this very issue. While I had no problem with MONGO's compiling, located here User:MONGO/arbcom, now deleted, he apparently had an issue with someone elses. He actually calls me a sockpuppet here as well[3]. He makes some false statements in that file, that I ask him to correct and he tells myself and Seabhcan to "buzz off."[4] Though with the page deleted I do not know if the last two difs will work. Back on topic I voted in the MfD to keep particularly because MONGO had seen nothing wrong with his own page and engaging in the same acts. And noone else found anything wrong with it, there should be no double standards. MONGO then warned me of Wikistalking him [5] and then again [6]. The last Dif highlights MONGO stating Aude had already passed a judgment on me, I was pretty unfamiliar with the user in question so I posted on their talk page asking them to not seem like a neutral third party if they made a decision without even discussing the issue with me. I even apologized in advance if MONGO had lied about their pre-judging[7]. MONGO then accuses me of being a sockpuppet again, at this point MONGO has taken to the habit of referring to me solely as "sockpuppet."[8]

This is a bit ironic. My next interaction is through following Giovanni who I already had interactions with on the "allegations" page. He attempts to add content to an article titled Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting reliable sources that state the act was that of state terrorism[9]. 5 hours later MONGO appears on the page, one he has never edited before and reverts Giovanni with the summary "rv POV."[10] How did MONGO find this page? Giovanni reverts [11], MONGO reverts [12], Someone reverts MONGO[13], MONGO reverts that person[14], Giovanni reverts MONGO [15]. At this point MONGO has reached his 3RR and is battling with two editors. Tom harrison then appears to revert Giovanni[16], Tom has never edited this article before either. How did Tom find this article? They engage back and forth with Tom reverting Giovanni and MONGO running to file 3RR[17], in a classic "gaming of the system." Running right up to 3RR himself in an edit war, then filing a 3RR report while his friend continues his edit war for him. I noticed this as a similar bullying method employed on the "allegations" page and inserted myself to revert [18].

I am sure Tom at this point realized he would reach 3RR before I did and finally took it to the talk page. MONGO then ironically posts on my talk page stating I am wikistalking him[19]. His exact message is "Hey...I told you to stop stalking my edits...can't you read?" How did MONGO and Tom find this page? I tell MONGO I found it through Giovanni via an edit summary of me removing his comments[20], of which he does not believe, he calls me a "problem child" and a "sockpuppet."[21] I guess only him and Tom can follow Giovanni? I tell him to quit his bullying and to play somewhere else[22]. While I admit I should have not made the remark, it was in direct relation to him calling me a "problem child," in turn I refer to him as a child, yes I know, not the most adult method, however AN/I often ends up with MONGO friends defending his incivility because of a wounded past, leaving others without much of a place to seek action. I then copy the "troll" template from MONGO's page, as I am worried about them as well[23]. MONGO then vandalizes my talk page [24], changing "This discussion page has attracted trolls" to "This discussion page is operated by a troll." MONGO was cited for his vandalism. In a humorous unfolding Aude appears on my recently vandalized talk page telling me to leave MONGO alone[25]. This is more of Aude's neutrality. In seeking admin intervention and perhaps someone close to MONGO to ask him to calm down, I went to Tom harrison's page, asking him to tell MONGo not to vandalize my page anymore.[26] Tom replies by stating I should not call MONGO a troll nor vandal, refusing to warn MONGO for his actions, However I never did call MONGO a troll nor vandal, Tom never posts difs either of me doing it. Theresa knott asked me to remove the template and I complied, asking them to do the same to MONGO if the template is being cited as hostile, or against rules. I attempted to make peace with MONGO once, stating he can post on my talk page if he can remain civil.[27] His reply was "don't go away mad, just go away sockpuppet"[28]

This obviously lead to the following:

[edit] WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL

MONGO has appeared in Arbitration in a prior situation in which the following evidence was presented independent of my own located below. I attempted to make sure the section below of dif's I located, did not contain anything mentioned in the previous Arbitration. Previous Arbcom evidence of violations of civility. He has called fellow editors "POV pushers," trolls," "bigots," "racists" and Anti-American.

[edit] "Radicals"

  1. The only way the radicals get their way here is by edit warring (for which three have recently been blocked for 3RR) or by using multiple IP's and sock accounts.[30]
  2. News flash...I said a brief mention, not a book supporting your radical and not really notable additions.

[edit] "Troll"

  1. Then head back to ED, Schmucky. Go troll there for awhile.[31] The comments were removed. Then readded by MONGO. [32]

[edit] "Sockpuppet"

  1. How many times do you have to be asked to sign your username with your IP. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep being such a waste of time? Besides, it is obvious you're a sockpuppet anyway.[33] - This was after I had explained to MONGO that I post via IP since I had forgotten my password.[34]
  2. Which was in response to two other diatribes, sockpuppet.[35]
  3. Why not just log in with your old account...the one you used before you got banned?[36]
  4. Yes, when I see someone with your editing history, I do see them as being here for one purpose...arguing. Due process? According to who? You? This isn't your only account...is it?[37] - This accusation was directed at user:Benhocking.

[edit] "Rants"

  1. I love it when anonymous IP'smake such bullshit commentary. It also is certainly notable that Givanni33 has a twisted view of the U.S., and indeed spends an overwhelming percentage of his edits trying to find whatever hairbrained fault he can about the U.S. and call it "fact". His outrageous block log is proof positive that eh is an edit warring nusiance that should have been perma banned long ago. Whenever single purpose accounts like Giovanni33 misuse Wikipedia to promote their hate and bias incessantly into article space, they should be banned ...[38]

[edit] Other

  1. "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not."[39] - This was brought up at AN/I and no action was taken. Apparently the anonymous editor did not have enough edits to justify making a report on the above comments.
  2. That goes both way SixOfDiamonds. I find your edits to be tendentious frankly.[40] - He is in this edit injecting himself into a dispute between myself and Ultramarine over source, he did not offer an alternate theory, did not provide a source, just attacked me and went upon his way.
  3. Well, we can't "guess" as that would be "confirmation bias", heh [41] - Apparently I am being mocked even while an Arbcom hearing is taking place.
  4. Good idea...do whatever you can to cover up the fact that your priority here is POV pushing and being a jerk.[42]

[edit] Pius behavior

  1. "I cite policies this article currently violates...if you choose to see it otherwise, then I can't help you become a better Wikipedia contributor."[43]
  2. Here's what assholish...when one comment is overblown by pedantic wikilawyers who have the insolence to link me to the CIVIL policy and tell me that this 1 tenth of 1 percent of "unfine contributions" justifies being labelled by people on a witchhunt as de facto proof that I am some kind of bigot.[44] - This was following the Brueni IP editor who MONGO stated with assurance was Anti-American because of their originating country.

[edit] Threats

  1. You have offered nothing to Wikipedia since you showed up, out of the blue to vote on the Afd for this article and have been POV pushing since. You'll likely end up banned if you don't make some major adjustments.[45]
  2. Your lack of impartiality is noted. Don't ever threaten me like you did again. This is your final warning.[46]
  3. How dare you remove my comment after I was attacked and insulted there by that JERK! Either offer your warnings equally or hand in your admin bit now.[47]

[edit] Wikistalking

Considering MONGO considers wikistalking as participating in a discussion the "other" person is involved ... here MONGO inserts himself into a discussion on AN/I I was taking part in[48], he specifically replies to me, giving what I felt was a false impression, apparently others felt the same.[49]

[edit] Allegations article

In going back to December, MONGO's edits to the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, consist of the following:

There is only one example dating back 7 months of MONGO contributing anything to the article. Some of the difs show him removing sections with over 10 citations and sources listed. He has consistently vote to delete the article or merge it, so it is no longer its own article: (11/2005), (8/2006), (4/2007), (6/2007). While I am sure there are editors who can work on an article they have once voted to delete, MONGO's edits have instead stagnated the development of the article, preventing well sourced information from being included.


[edit] Evidence presented

[edit] Useless IP address evidence, tone of evidence

The reverse DNS for the IP address "74.73.16.230" is cpe-74-73-16-230.nyc.res.rr.com is claimed by MONGO and others to be incriminating of something. That stands for Client Premesis Equipment (cpe), and nyc.res.rr.com just means a residential Road Runner cable connection. These IPs are never static and rotate from user to user. How much do they rotate? You would have to ask Road Runner, but they also use nyc.res.rr.com for virtually all their residential users in all of New York City, which has over 11,000,000 people living in it. Cable IPs are trivial to change if one wants to. If Six/Sevenofdiamonds never rotated his, when all it takes is rebooting your PC, your cable modem, and waiting a few minutes, it shows he had nothing to hide. Road Runner is the provider for virtually of NYC for home cable modem service. WHOIS on the IP only shows the corporate address of Road Runner in Virginia. The simple fact that both Nuclear and SevenOfDiamonds show a nyc.res.rr.com is meaningless. All residents in New York City have that. All 11,000,000 plus of them. That includes virtually every Wikipedia editor (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) that uses Road Runner from home to edit in the massive five boroughs of New York City. Thats a lot of Wikipedia editors from a historically extremely heavily Democratic region of the country (explaining many edits), with an obvious interest regionally in both terrorism and 9/11 articles.

Simply put, Nuclear in Park Slop has 65,000 people in his neighborhood, and Seven has 69,000 in his Bay Ridge neighborhood, odds are that there are probably 50,000+ nyc.res.rr.com's floating around between them. And thats just from two neighborhoods... alone. Out of five boroughs. Out of 11,000,000 souls. By that token of evidence you can liberally accuse any NYC editor of being NuclearUmph (or whomever) if they were living in New York City, had cable television, and edited 9/11 articles in a fashion that weren't in line with the widely accepted interpretations of the United States Government. Obviously, this evidence is on par with saying,

"He's 1) human, 2) breathing, 3) lives in a structure, 4) clearly has Internet access, and 5) just edited an article that MONGO has edited in a way that is contrary to MONGO's views. Must be a sockpuppet. Which? Let's try them all based on those five key, unique data points that were not arbitrarily chosen." 70.112.20.214 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add I do not believe the template additions were mine. I have edited Wikipedia quite aggressively. There is no possible way I would have had over a month between edits, and it would be rather odd if the IP came back to me after being released, though I guess it is possible depending on how many blocks are attributed to Brooklyn. The edits after this I do however maintain are mine as the time frame clearly fits.

To continue on the point above, I did some searches on WikiScanner and compiled the information User:SevenOfDiamonds/IPFallacy. It seems 9/11 related topics are extremely common. In examining less than 2.5% (5 out of 250+ ranges) of all of the data the topic appeared numerous times, this was in search only 5 of the 250 possible Road Runner tagged IP segments available on Wikiscanner for only the last 3 months. Within the IP range presented above I was also able to identify 7 other Wikipedia editors, from Brooklyn, New York, editing in the last 3 months, within 100 digits of my exact IP. That means they all fell within the 74.73.16.* range, which only contains 255 possible IP's, two of which, .255 and .1, I believe are always taken by the ISP for routing.

[edit] False "evidence"

  1. Nuclear stated he lives in Park Slope brooklyn according to MONGO. I live in BayRidge which is about 3 miles away and large difference in income.
  2. MONGO states both of us live in Park Slope because of a RDNS. RDNS based on location goes to the trunk of the ISP. The trunk is located in Sunset Park, which lies between BayRidge and Park Slope, anyone living in Brooklyn knows this place because it is where you pick up your cable box.
  3. MONGO attempts to link the two by an edit Nuclear made to the "allegations" page where he added a section on Guatemala. This editing being sole edit being used to connect my interests to Nuclears are on country I have little knowledge of, do not edit articles related to, and on an article Nuclear wanted deleted. I actually wasted my time to find this out by scouring Nuclears edits, but Nuclear was not re-adding the section because he agreed with it. You can see the dif of the discussion on it.[69] Nuclear was arguing the section did not meet requirements because it only stated the US "pioneered" the practice of kidnappings and executions that would later be known as "state terror," but did not specifically state the US committed the acts as "state terror." It appears he is re-adding the section because Fairness (someone I have been accused of being) defends it and has the support of two other editors.[70]. This is an example of confirmation bias, only looking for what will satisfy your hypothesis and ignoring or dismissing all other information.
  4. MONGO stated Nuclear never wikilinks policy, then provides difs of him not doing it. Ignoring of course the times he did, in less than a minute I managed to find examples: [71] [72].
  5. I also do wikilink policy at times: [73] [74] [75] [76] The worst part about this accusation is it makes little sense. If both myself and Nuclear never wikilinked policy, it would look bad, if we both always wikilinked policy it may look bad (is there a policy or standard?), however the evidence is that we both share in common, sometimes not doing it. This incorporates everyone who did not wikilink a policy at times.
  6. When Nuclear left according to MONGO, he stated he already had a new account, this was in February. I have not edited with an account until SixOfDiamonds was made. MONGO ignores this fact as well.
  7. Nuclear left threatening to cause disruption, of which if you check my block log I have not. Other than constantly having to defend myself against MONGO and his friends in RFCU's and AN/I posts, some of them not even users I have edited articles alongside.
  8. MONGO repeatedly has stated I started an RfC against him. This is false and if it can be undeleted it can be proven. The RfC in question was brought to my attention by a post on my talk page. After having had MONGO threaten me on my talk page with "stop or else," "I will have you blocked," and repeated accusations of being a sockpuppet, as well as vandalizing my talk page.
  9. MONGO maintains Nuclear's edit summaries are normally short like mine, or just consist of one word. However if you look at his last 500, and to a greater extent 1000, you will see Nuclear normally writes entire sentences or multi word summaries. I rarely do this unless asking the person to not post on my talk page anymore or feel a long explanation is required, such as when I removed Clarence 13X from the list of NOI leaders.[77]
  10. MONGO states I had immediate knowledge of Wiki markup. First, wiki markup is a mash of html entities and vbb code, with very little separating them. Second, he flags his own statement as false by pointing to an edit I may have made over a month ago on an IP that was later surely used by myself. If I had been editing Wikipedia as MONGO claims for a month (actually its been about a year now) then it would be expected I would have learned markup by then. MONGO ignores this own flaw in his own reasoning, attempting to put out as many theories, regardless if they cross eachother.
  11. MONGO states that both myself and Nuclear changed our names after "corrective action", ignoring his own harassment of me to post via a username and not as my IP. I specifically registered a new name so that I can meet what he was asking, I was previously editing from home via IP, one I made known on that IP's talk page belonged to SixOfDiamonds. MONGO's complaints brought about the same situation he is complaining about. A further difference is Nuclear changed names to escape his ruling, I did not. I picked an obviously close name to the one I was already using, and continued to participate, even redirecting my userpage to the new one, as well as talk page.
  12. MONGO's conflict section is another example of straws being grasped at. I am noted as having conflicts with TBeatty, MONGO, Tom harrison and Aude.
    1. As noted below I was not aware I had any bad conflicts with Tom. My interactions are noted on this page as being favorable. What is presented in a sole dif,[78] however ignoring the many other positive interactions I have had with Tom:
      [79] Asking Tom for assistance when MONGO vandalized my talk page.
      [80] Complimenting Tom even though he refused to take action against MONGO for the vandalism.
      [81] [82] Discussing an edit Tom made and how to improve it.
      [83] Discussing another edit Tom made and an alternate meaning to a passage he cited.
      [84] Explaining to Tom how Amazon.com book reading works. I pointed him the correct location of a citation.
      [85] Commending Tom for his edits and being a positive contributor to the allegations page even though he argued for deletion.
    2. Noted as having a conflict with TBeatty. I have actually rarely interacted with this user as previously noted. They tend to come to MONGO's aid whenever someone is stating MONGO has been uncivil. The sole dif is simply me telling TBeatty that their personal definition of what constitutes terrorism is not applicable to the article in question. There does not seem to be much of a conflict here.
    3. The "conflict" with Aude is me questioning them on MONGO's statement that they had passed judgment on me regarding if I was a sockpuppet.[86] The dif is included where MONGO name drops some people who apparently agree with them. I could not find any on-wiki discussion of it, so I made Aude aware that they should have discussed the accusation with me, and further that off-wiki discussions lack transparency.[87] The next statement takes place 3 days after MONGO stated Aude passed judgement on me, it is made to Tom, and explains to Tom the RFCU's and accusations were being used to harass me.[88] Tom took no action regarding my statement.
  13. MONGO states zero had a sub page on Hugo Chavez, and that I had argued that Hugo Chavez's comments should be included on the state terrorism page. However what I was actually arguing is that any countries leaders and governments should by included, not just the accusers. The actual defending was specifically done of the Cuban paper Granma, then extended into state run/influenced media, then later into particular leaders and countries.

[edit] Faulty evidence

  1. MONGO's proof of us being the same is that we both misspell "commonly misspelled words." The key being they are common for a reason.
  2. MONGO states that both myself and Nuclear have removed posts from him and Tom, then provides difs of only me removing his posts. This is for two reasons, I have had nothing but good interactions with Tom, or so I thought, and because MONGO failed to mention the posts I removed are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and attacking me, if you look at what he actually wrote that was removed.
  3. Evidence related to time of editing:
    1. Most of MONGO's evidence revolves around the time of day both me and Nuclear edit, which corresponds to the day time of the entire east coast.
    2. MONGO however ignores that Nuclear's editing never drops, ignoring that my editing does at 7AM since that is when myself and most of NYC leaves for work. New Yorkers typically leave between 7-8AM to get to work at 9AM, which is why the period is called "rush hour," and known all over the world for it.
    3. MONGO also ignores in his own chart that my editing does not peak until 2 hours after Nuclears since this is when I typically get home, living further away from Nuclear I would suppose, my train ride would take longer, if like most of NYC we both left work at 5PM.
    4. It actually does not even look like Nuclear works since there is never a drop in his editing, it just rises until lunch then tapers off afterwards, as if there is no travel time.
  4. MONGO states I always misspell "consensus" as "concensus." While I am sure I have my typos I have actually corrected the spelling of someone else and spelled it correctly myself. [89]
  5. I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year under various IP's and under two different ISP's. What MONGO categorizes as my first edit, is not, it is just the last one that can be tracked due to my use of it after registering an account.
  6. Nuclears political leaning is also quite opposed to mine, he is noted in the allegations archive as being opposed to the topic. He has removed sources and even voted to delete the article.[90] I maintain MONGO has more in common with Nuclear then myself had it not been for timezones. This argument by Nuclear is the same made by MONGO now on the talk page of the same article deletion page a few months later. [91]
  7. The edit summary of "huh" that is not common is in fact used by MONGO repeatedly [92] [93] [94] [95]
    1. At this point the straws are being grasped so strongly I will not continue to note how common the items they are noting are. "both users" use "revert" when reverting as an edit summary I am sure will appear next.
    2. MONGO latest desperate tactic to link me to Nuclear is stating with both often misspell the same words. I am surely guilty of a typo or two. MONGO states we both often misspell "argument" as "arguement," however in 2 minutes on just one page alone I found numerous examples of myself not doing it, Apparently when you are cherry-picking your evidence you miss quite a bit, or just ignore it: [96] [97] [98][99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]
    3. The question we are inevitably left with is how uncommon are some of these terms that both myself and Nuclear share? Sophia has done a wonderful breakdown here showing at least 1 in 20 people share the same misspellings as myself and Nuclear, further some statements and "obscure" sayings are shared by over 1000 other pages. The term Chest beating appears on 37 pages, separate is spelled incorrectly 25% of the time. Consensus is spelled incorrectly 5% of the time. "Huh" appears on 11,000 pages, "rofl" on 646 pages, "lol" 20,000 pages. I think the analysis proves this evidence is being cherry picked.
    4. Just to highlight even those on MONGO's side of this have warned him about his cherry picking of common terms.[105] The linking of the edit summary "typo" was going to be included as evidence, apparently grasping down to the latest straw. Sophia goes on to make a very good point at what 5% relates to in terms of the number of people editing wikipedia and how this information is being presented without a baseline. They also did correctly state how I picked my edit summary, other then the edit summary of "response" when responding to someone, that seemed natural.[106]
  8. In the latest attempts to link me to rex you can see more false information being prepared. TBeatty who is unaware of how IP's are assigned, states the IP 72.225.141.250 is from NYC roadrunner, however it is not. The hvc designation in cpe-72-225-141-250.hvc.res.rr.com is the city code, it clearly is not nyc.[107] As I stated the fishing expedition would expand once this accusation failed and has already moved onto the next editor I will be accused of. I attempted to make MONGO aware of this,[108] however he seemed to not care about false information being presented.[109] Which leads into the below section on confirmation bias.

[edit] Confirmation bias

  1. Sophia discussed the idea of using a confirmation bias. I think this is greatly shown by the straws not only being grasped, but also by the dismissal of counter evidence. MONGO notes his information regarding how often I wikilink policy is incorrect, but dismisses it as not a significant portion. He does this again with the charting of "time of editing," ignoring the time my editing spikes, ignoring the gap in my editing for when I go to work and, ignoring that Nuclear has no dips in editing until lunch. MONGO further dismisses my short edit summaries in comparison to Nuclears often larger ones, Nuclears politics and the lack of shared interests. This is a pretty close example of Morton's Demon.
  2. Just to further note, alot of the comparison points are not shared between Nuclear and zero, or MONGO is just not highlighting them. This is peculiar, if these are tell-tale signs, then they should be repeated by both users and myself. However MONGO is not drawing comparisons of evidence. For example if Arbcom was to believe the cherry-picked evidence above, then any user in NYC that then runs afoul with MONGO, and used "lol" for an edit summary would then be a match. They would most likely, unless they are an insomniac, edit during the same hours as myself, matching a majority of what MONGO considers to be evidence. I maintain the lack of common threads between myself and Nuclear and zero, remain paper thin, because I am not them, finding a similar edit summary when you are examining Nuclears edit history of over 8,000 edits is bound to happen, for example I share many with Auburnpilot as well: "lol" "huh?" "+1" "response" "note.". To take this further if Auburnpilot edited from NYC they would then be a perfect match for myself, most likely sharing the same editing hours. In this case, if Arbcom stated I was Nuclear, a case then be easily made drawing links through my edit history, along with Nuclears for matches to Auburn. The contribution list would exponentially grow as mor eusers were labeled as sockpuppets of mine. This then leaves people who share a viewpoint with Auburn or something similar with them open to further linking, since the items do not have to match consistently throughout all of the listed users, just one of the many.
  3. In total Nuclear has 8,500 or more edits. Finding something in common with any user should not be difficult, finding 9/11 related articles in common should be even less of a surprise in relation to New Yorkers, especially when the "things" in common are "commonly misspelled words," unsurprising if Nuclear was not a very good typist. I want to drive the point that Nuclears politics are very different then mine, voting to delete the very article I participate highly on. Nuclear edited articles on rappers, graffiti and wars. Very different topics from myself.

[edit] Disruption

I still await any proof of this. MONGO has repeatedly claimed his harassment of me is due to "my disruption," however he has not offered any proof of disruption. His claims of Wikistalking are also false. In relation to the WP:CANVASS article, I am actually helping the group see they are all in agreement with the general theme, however MONGO ignores this. In the AfD I simply voted on what I felt was right, and mentioned MONGO's own page much like the one he was seeking to get deleted. "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption" However there was no disruption.