Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Proposed decision

message: They seem fair to me. ViridaeTalk 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, boiled down a lot of stuff into just a few phrases.  --Rocksanddirt 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they look fine and seem to be acceptable to all parties. Melsaran (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I have a vote I am sure. But I find it appropriate as it assures equal protection for both myself and MONGO from each of our perceived issues. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed decisions by Kirill

message: I noticed that flonight only voted on the one proposal about sockpupettry.  Does she intend to vote on any other proposals and just hasn't decided yet?  or does she intend to stay with the one, because if it passes everything else is moot?  not important really, just a question.  --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes they have to think about it, sometimes they just forget. Thatcher131 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure what it means 

message: So if MONGO and SevenofDiamonds are not allowed to comment or interact with one another, do they have to not edit the same articles?  Who gets dibs of articles they have both edited in the past? Thatcher131 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there may be some liberty taken, like if they're both editing nicely and not reverting each other on the same article, I think no one would really care.  Just what I think anyway. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly...I already said that the only involvement I intended to have with Diamonds was on this case. When he showed up at the attack sites arbitration case, I stopped contributing to it...seems a shame I have to evade him, but if that is the best thing for Wikipedia, no biggie...the arbcom has already moved on to the proposed principles there anyway.--MONGO 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I purposely avoided responding to your comments. However its a case that involves the entire community hence I did not feel I should be barred from it. While it has not been "approved" yet, I figured I should start not responding to you as soon as possible. Its a shame if you feel you cannot participate in an article without responding directly to me. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So who gets dibs? 

message: :SevenOfDiamonds and MONGO each accuse the other of harassment. Both are correct to some degree.
This sounds incredibly vague.  Can this be reworded on how specifically each one is correct to some degree? hbdragon88 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the workshop page, evidence talk page, and the various AN and ANI threads you will see that neither one can refrain from commenting on the others comments.  It's not so much vague, as being more specific is not really possible.  They gently harass each other pretty much constantly.  --Rocksanddirt 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the history between the two I think this is entirely sufficient and appropriate. There is no reason for ArbCom to examine every instance of alleged harrassment. That would take months for ArbCom to properly examine and we need to remember that they are doing this in their spare time, not full time. Rocksanddirt sums it up very nicely. EconomicsGuy 13:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: It was my understanding that falsaff unblocked SoD, as the consensus was not achieved to block him as a sock at that time.  Not, soley to participate in this proceeding.  --Rocksanddirt 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. Perhaps Fred can expand on his wording. Just to add he also apologized for going against the established concensus, the user went to him did not mention the Arbitration Enforcement page where it was already decided there was no concensus. Fayassal also did not unblock me so I can participate here, he did so because he went against consensus. He then told MONGO if he wanted to keep up accusing he would have to file an Arbcom. MONGo refused and Theresa then filed. The proposed finding of fact, is not fact at all. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the phrase "he has been unblocked to participate in this arbitration" is actually not true it obviously needs to be reworded.  Not a big deal, except that it's a bad idea to have findings of fact in an ArbCom which are demonstrably false.  A committee member needs to fix that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I just got distracted by other things. Fred Bauder 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the latest proposed decisions 

message: User:Zer0faults doesn't appear to actually be blocked from editing.  The last block in the log was lifted in June of 06.  While the user hasn't contributed since Sept. 06.  Nuclearumpf however is blocked.  It seems a bit odd.  --Rocksanddirt 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NuclearUmpf is Zer0faults...when he created the Nuclear username, he redirected his Zer0faults account to the new username .--MONGO 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: got it, thanks!.  I just looked at the block logs.  --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Random Observation 

message: This is directed at MONGO et al. However all feel free to hop on board. I have decided to quit participating here. It seems Wikipedia is a grand social experiment and mirrors a real democratic system closely. Who you have on your side, weighs more then the actual events. I have been accused of harassing you, however you have not been able to note a single time when I made a comment or remark to you without you having had made one against me first. Second it seems your ally on the "Bad Sites" issue has come to your rescue, someone who already admitted to not having read the evidence, or having the time to do so. I am accepting the label of "sockpuppet" to please the community and will enjoy my exile. If anything it will only give you more ammo and this project will hopefully collapse on itself, or realize the errors of its ways and see you for what many believe you are, you will now have topics of Latin America / 9.11 / South East Asia as your mixing pot to label others as socks. This will be my last edit, and I request the article I created be deleted under G7. The following pages meet this requirement:
*Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla
*Luis Hernando Gomez
*Zapata Sparrow
*Colombian presidential election, 1998
*BINCI
*Zapata Swamp
*Mario Montoya Uribe
*Jose Antonio Llama
To those who seen the paper thin evidence for what it was, thank you. For those who accepted the line "its the total of the evidence" every time MONGO was proven to be lying or misstating, I really can not express my distaste and disappointment at what you have taken away from the project by asking me to leave. My final words to you MONGO, I hope your victory over the "other POV" as you called it when you were looking for people to accuse me of, is well worth it. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rescue? Funny...there was no rescue when they desysopped me. I have never sought a "victory" and I have repeatedly stated that when commentators at arbcom enforcement saw no reason to block you, I intended to drop it...this case was opened by someone else, and I have avoided you otherwise. As far as someone not looking at the evidence, as you claim Bauder hasn't apparently, ElC, an editor I have a lot of respect for, never looked over my evidence either and yet was opposed to having you blocked at arbcom enforcement since he thought there had been too much phishing....you'll have to do what is best for you.--MONGO 05:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sad that you've again made this decision.  However, as others have edited the articles you refer to, a G7 speedy deletion is unlikely to be applicable.  My advice is to simply ignore this proceeding, unwatchlist it.  In another month, after the arbitors have looked at the reams of commentary they will decide for the harassment restriction on both of you, and that will be the end of it.  --Rocksanddirt 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually since I am the only one who "provided the page's only substantial content" I can request G7. I did not pick all of my articles as some were expanded thanks to Fernando and others who care about the Latin America topics. However the edits to those pages either never stood or are just wikilinks. I am sorry I made the decision as well, however I do not like the atmosphere here anymore, it is too political. Someone participating in my Arbcom, Fred, proposed findings of fact that were not true. They are also an ally of MONGO on another Arbitration and here sided with them as well. They have also stated they did not read the evidence nor cared to. The politics surrounding editing Wikipedia is too much to deal with. In the first month here I wrote 5 articles I believe, since this Arbcom took off I have not been able to start the narco-state article I wanted to, nor help Fernando on the narco-trafficking article. If I am going to be looked at as a sockpuppet, if politics will continue to be more important then editing and contributing, then I have no desire to remain. I thought the goal of this project was noble, but the people who participate often think they are bigger then that goal sadly. Thank you for your kind words and rational thinking, no matter which side of the divide you ended up taking. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job well done 

message: User:NuclearUmpf was indefinitely blocked in February, but the User:Zer0faults was not blocked at the time.  He came back today and left a message on User:MONGO's talk page, including harassment of User:DHeyward.    To prevent further disruption, I have indef blocked Zer0faults. --Aude (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But  has made no edits for a year. Fred Bauder 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at his deleted contributions. And please see my note a few lines down. --Aude (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really think I was making it up when I said "He came back today and left a message on User:MONGO's talk page"?  That concerns me. --Aude (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I didn't realize the edit was deleted. Fred Bauder 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem.  The content of the edit was not okay to leave in the history. --Aude (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't you mean you blocked me? You do believe we are the same person after all. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Zero makes his first edit in over a year mere hours after you declare you're leaving Wikipedia forever. I've got to play the lottery tonight. Chaz Beckett 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Hey wait that means I am zer0!, you are good. As I said, I already accept the block as a sockpuppet. The community here is amusing. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: Diff has been deleted from the page history due to harrassment.  I'll leave everything else up to arbcom. --Aude (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diamonds, stop trying to go down in a blaze of martyrdom. I actually thought you were doing a better job getting along in the community, but this is dumb. The Evil Spartan 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. There is no martyrdom. Believe it or not ... I am not zer0/Nuclear/LoveLight/Rex/Giovanni/Fairness/ or whoever is needed to make others feel better. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst part is, I never had an issue with TBeatty, she comes to MONGO's defense, but we do not even edit the same articles. I guess I can say that til I am blue in the face however. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just confessed to it above. I'm done feeding this nonsense. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was sarcasm ... I give up. So it is good you give up. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm never comes through when people don't like you.  --Rocksanddirt 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its obvious everyone has made up their mind, which is why I accept the inevitable. I want to stick around and watch the branding and the following excommunication. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think everyone except most of the arbitors have made up thier minds.  Some think you are the devil, some don't.  --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My guess is that the most recent edit from Zero did not use the same IP as SOD. SOD has already demonstrated that he has knowledge of IP addresses allocation and probably would have made the Zero edit from somewhere (library, university, cafe) he doesn't usually edit from. Chaz Beckett 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured that would be said, which is why I argued against the latest RFCU. However I am sure Arbcom can check to see the IP I used while posting here today while I was at work and that one. There is an ace in my pocket that you all do not know that Arbcom with checkuser does, and that is where I work. Which is also why I am perplexed at Fred's vote. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that Fred B is going off the pattern information as is flonight.  For those inclined to see disruption and arguementation as sockpuppets it is a clear cut case.  For those not so inclined, it's not so clear.  --Rocksanddirt 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zer0faults account blocked 

message: Does anyone read any of the evidence. Flonight just wrote it is not harassment to discuss with someone if they are violating their parole. MONGO did not discuss anything with me, he accused me, then followed me around calling me a sockpuppet and troll. What is the point of evidence, if no one is reading it?
They also stated there was enough evidence for a CU. Odd there was no evidence presented in 4 of them, how does no evidence constitute enough evidence. They also all came back false. 
Here is another good one, they stated I was disruptive enough to draw others attention, then ignore that one of the people who posted a check user already admitted they did it solely off MONGO. One of them I did not edit articles with, they filed 3 of them, which is pretty odd. The last one I had one interaction with telling them their opinion is not a valid measure of the definition of terrorism. The best part, noone has posted any disruptive evidence that was not preceded with MONGO attacking me. Since this proceeding is just a joke and no one is taking it serious I have am again quitting. To those who posted kind words telling me I should wait, I see no point with people not even taking the time to read through what is presented, yes FloNight, I am sure you read it numerous times, however since you obviously did not read my counter-evidence, you really did not read much. Thank you all for wasting my time. I hope everyone is happy with their protection of MONGO to the point where its not even harassment to call me a "troll" and refer to me as a sockpuppet on every article I post on. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suggestion for you, that I've alluded to but not made specific.  I suggest that you don't comment on every single thing in this arbcomm.  It hurts the case that you are being harrassed.  Arbcom's will read and see what they want to.  I think it is instructive that only three have voted on this and it's been open for voting for at least two weeks.  I think most havn't made up thier minds.  Your comments become whineing after a bit, and that hurts your case.  I happen to agree with you, but I'm not an 'olde tyme' valued contributor, who is going to get the benifit of the doubt no matter what.  --Rocksanddirt 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom

message: Once again, we've managed to completely ignore any discussion of MONGO's incivility in its own right. It's much more convenient, and less controversial, if we just blame it on the people who harass him. After all, it's a well established principle that people may only be sanctioned once nobody does anything bad to them, and they continue in their behavior...
...oh wait, no it isn't. -Amarkov moo! 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it has been clearly established that based on the definitions used in wikipedia, and arbitrated to a farethewell, MONGO by definition is not incivil.  So it would serve no purpose to review his conduct, it is appropriate.  </poor sarcasm>  --Rocksanddirt 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your facination is with this particular case...to my knowledge, we have not once encountered each other anywhere on this website...unless you used to edit with a different username.--MONGO 09:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough with the accusations. ViridaeTalk 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have never encountered mongo during the normal course of editing.  But I started reading the admin noticeboard and AN/incidents, and some of the arbcom cases when I first started waste more time on wikipedia, and Mongo came up in a number of contexts.  I found it quite interesting the response to issues around mongo (and "abusive" old timers in general) and tried to read the back story (by no means a complete review), then the foolish ness with SoD started and like a trainwreck or a telenovela it's darn hard to turn away.  --Rocksanddirt 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see...foolishness eh? Well, surely, if you look at my userpage, my motivations are generally not geared towards dealing with ban evaders...I definitely have better things to do, like write and enhance articles. I just find it odd that you claim you belong to a couple of projects, yet rarely seem to make any edits to articles that those projects encompass. If you have a geology or similar background, then Wikipedia needs editors like you to work on such things. I have a similar background and have created numerous articles on mountains and glaciers...why not join the effort there?--MONGO 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I am member of at least one wikiproject that I rarely make edits to - does that make em a sockpuppet too MONGO? ViridaeTalk 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...does it?--MONGO 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one making the strawman argument in the first place, so perhaps you shoudl clarify that point. Go on, checkuser me to find how many sockpuppets I have stashed under my belt, all editing abusively. Because of course, because I occasionally look at ED and participate in discussion on WR and *gasp* don't like your attitude I must be a sockpuppet. Add to that the basically zero participation in subjects I claim to be trained in and wow, I must be a sockpuppet. Perhaps that is  why I am being so brazen about it, trying to lead you a reverse psychology situation... ViridaeTalk 02:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope that works out for you.--MONGO 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is really very simple...if you aren't on Wikipedia to write and enhance articles, then you are simply wasting your time. There are thousands of blogs to go bicker with people.--MONGO 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. That doesn't mean that people must not ever deal with others they think are problematic, and in fact, doing so may very well enhance the encyclopedia. -Amarkov moo! 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones I find to be most problematic over time are the ones who are not here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that on average before this dramatic bit you subjected me to, I was writing more articles per week then you. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Was there an actual purpose with this thread or was it just to stir the shit, piss off MONGO  and create more drama? EconomicsGuy 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is quite clear. ViridaeTalk 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice...I didn't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry except you...if you and others have read it otherwise, then that wasn't the intention, of course.--MONGO 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As predicted  For two people who do not know each other in real life, she sure does protect you a lot. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just proves that there are still some people around these parts who know when administrators are simply looking for a reason to settle odd scores.--MONGO 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name an admin who does not agree with you that has spoken out that does not? Even better, please explain why they have an axe to grind against you. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yaay.