User talk:Monkh Naran

Welcome!

Hello, Monkh Naran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

December 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Inner Mongolia, in this edit summary. It is not logical for you to assume that I am "Communist" or support the CCP when you know very little about me. And you are the one who is being hypocritical when accusing me of being "aggressive". Thus I ask you to comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Inner Mongolia. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Diannaa (Talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Inner Mongolia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is disruptive. Diannaa, please be fair. Please go to that page and see what is happening there. There is a Mongolian saying "People hate if you say the truth, dogs hate if u mount a bull." I said the naked truth and they hate it. I made only 2 edits today while the editor above made more than two removing the HUMAN RIGHTS link. Why'r you not acting equal? I'll log out now to avoid being blocked, but please do not cooperate with those who are pushing POV. If you continue this unfair treatment, I'll have to report. Monkh Naran (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I say that I "hate" it? another FALSE allegation right there. it's not a question of whether such information is included anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a question of where, as I have clearly stated.
 * And my tolerance of having the human rights link on the page on the condition that the government website is also included contradicts the POV-pushing. You are the one here who is more clearly "pushing POV". Enough with your hypocrisy --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, sorry for my emotional complaint. Now I see you sent the same warning to the other editors engaged in the edit war. Therefore, my complaint that your were treating us unequally was wrong. I apologize for that. Now I logout to rest. Monkh Naran (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Monkh Naran for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for bringing to my light this image Hada south mongolia.jpg. I had never seen it before you added it to Inner_Mongolia article. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Gantuya eng for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Request
I've fixed your unblock request, but given the evidence at the SPI I don't think anyone's going to drink the Kool-Aid here. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 11:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Atama! Who is everyone? The sockpuppet investigation against Gantuya eng was quite weakly based. How can you account for such a great number of never-used accounts being designated as sockpuppets? I mean, if I'd create a sockpuppet, I'd want it to execute some kind of functions. I.e., I cannot see this in another way than that the results of Checkuser are meaningless here. When I - unaware of the politics on canvassing at that time - tried to rally Mongolian-related users for the discussion on Articles_for_deletion/Mongolia_during_Tang_rule, Monkh Naran showed up once, but while Gantuya (in the end defending a lost position together with Tenmei) would have been in need of a lot of extra support, no such support was provided by Monkh Naran. The only true cooperation of these two accounts was on the talk page of Inner Mongolia, and any somewhat nationalist Mongolian (which holds true of most Mongolians) would have defended this point. And the point that both users show limited awareness of the rules of Wikipedia (e.g. as exemplified in the naive wording of this unblock request here) is not surprising for an editor that edited as rarely as Monkh Naran. Another user, Yaan, pointed to the weakness of accusations against Gantuya, as I would have done then if I had been aware of the discussion. My mind would be more at ease if you could give an account of this case that does away with the contradictions (of so many unused accounts) that I mentioned. For the behavioral evidence does leave some leeway for reasonable doubt. G Purevdorj (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quigley's observation of the similarities between the accounts is very striking. The objections to the results of the investigation strike me as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They're the same person, it's blatantly obvious. A question like "How can you account for such a great number of never-used accounts being designated as sockpuppets?" to me shows that you're not very familiar with how sockpuppets are used. It's very common for people who abuse multiple accounts to create numerous accounts at one time and wait to use them. It's so common we have a term for it, "sleeper accounts", and it's standard practice to check for then during an investigation. I don't want to get too deep into an explanation, per WP:BEANS, but sleeper accounts can be very helpful to a person who is evading a block if they remain undetected before they are "woken up". Let's just say that rather than being a contradiction, it's something that's very common to find. --  At am a  頭 16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's say that I am still not entirely convinced, but I now understand better why this discussion had something obvious in it for some of the participating editors. Given what you say, it will be very hard to provide evidence sufficient to clear Ganaa's name. At any rate, thanks for your helpful info! Oh, one additional question: I don't know how to check it, but were those other accounts (including Monkh Naran, in particular) all created at the same time? G Purevdorj (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at exactly the same time but a number were created very close to one another. Bayasaa san was created in the last week of November 2010. Muuriintuya, Misheel0614, TGuess, Uulenbor, ADMiRAL xXx, Chba, Yuki ub, Auszie, and HONOHONO were all created the next month (December 2010). Beyondvbirthday, Tuvsanaa, Telmen tergel, and Hoshi.sasori were all created the following month (January 2011). IPROJECTS was created early in February 2011. Some of the accounts created in the same month were created within a day of each other, or even on the same day. So out of the 18 accounts that were shown to be technically related, 15 of them were created fairly close to one another, which is consistent with the actions of a person who has decided to create a number of new accounts to use at a later convenience. Now, not all of the accounts were blocked (and Hoshi.sasori doesn't match the editing pattern of the other accounts so is probably a completely different person) but the timing of the account creation does support the suggestion that at least most of them could be related. Also, remember in that time period (the end of January 2011) Monkh Narak was found to be abusing multiple accounts here.


 * The only accounts that weren't created in that late November to early February timeframe were Gantuya eng, Monkh Naran, and Kim Han Gul. All three were created much earlier, and at very different times (2007 for Gantuya eng, early 2009 for Monkh Naran, and late 2009 for Kim Han Gul). But all three of these editors have been linked together because of the similarity of the way they edit, the way they talk, and the subjects they edit (as explained at both sockpuppet investigations). So that's how the timing of account creation works for all of these accounts. --  At am a  頭 18:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look beyond Quigley's rhetoric and at the actual evidence, all you will see is two users discussing Mongolian-style about Mongolian topics and with Mongolian "accents". Yes, both use smileys from time to time and have, at other times, reverted other users' edits. Nothing that could not be constructed in a similar way for two in three randomly selected Russsian users. Or Chinese, German, Polish ones.

Of course, once you start interpreting observations like 'one is also interested in Korea, while the other one is also interested in Tibet' (my paraphrase) as actually speaking for the two being one and the same person, it all must appear very obvious. But if you read carefully enough, most of Quigley's observations have not much more substance than his guess that "there are many more acknowledged Wikipedians in Mongolia than were mentioned here." (as can be observed in the current status of the Mongolia work group)

Seriously, if the technical evidence is inconclusive enough to let anybody whom Quigley and HXL do not happen to dislike go free, then there is no justification for banning Monkh_Naran and Gantuya, either. Yaan (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Replying to this is probably a violation of WP:DENY, but I will say something here that is useful to sockpuppetry cases in general. In the case of tendentious nationalist POV pushers like Monkh Naran, their sockpuppets' forays into exotic topics like, to quote Yaan, "Korea and Tibet" are very shallow, seeking only to further their position in the main disputes they care about. And you are correct that HXL and I "happen to dislike" this sockpuppeteer, because he used his sockpuppets to stalk our edits and edit-war against our contributions to avoid breaking 3RR. An example from User:Auszie, a sockpuppet supposedly "interested in Tibet":, , , , . In reality, neither of these sockpuppets were interested in Korea or Tibet; they were interested in harassing editors who had disputes with the sockmaster, editors who happened to contribute to Korea and Tibet topics. Quigley (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why yourself and 虞海 suggested that the checkuser result was inconclusive. The checkuser result was a confirmation, which was the opposite. Often in sockpuppet investigations we have inconclusive results from the check, and must rely solely on behavioral comparison to determine whether or not sockpuppetry was done. This case is the opposite, where the result confirmed the connection and we must use behavioral results to exclude accounts from the result (which was the case with Hoshi.sasori). Tiptoety cautioned the likelihood of false positives from the checkuser result due to the nature of the IP range, but keep in mind that's still a positive. It's the same situation as WP:FAMILY, where multiple people using the same computer may be accused of being sockpuppets because they are broadcasting the same connection information, even though they are different people.


 * Again, I'll reiterate what I said before, that you're ignoring what administrators have concluded and even what Quigley said. Your defense of Monkh Naran seems in no way connected to the evidence that Quigley listed in the investigation. Your argument suggests that every Mongolian editor would be expected to leave "long rants, with lots of capital letters, always edited afterwards to correct formatting errors with headings and indentation", or be interested in historical Japan-Korea and China-Tibet disputes... Even that every Mongolian editor follows around the editors Historiographer and Mathpianist93 to get into disputes with them (what did they do to anger the entire nation of Mongolia?). Every Mongolian editor calls their talk page a "house", and calls talk page messages "intrusions", or habitually calls other editors "rude", and every Mongolian editor edits the talk page posts of every other Mongolian editor? Frankly, I'd be offended if I were Mongolian and your suggestion wasn't so silly.


 * My suggestion is to give this a rest. Monkh Naran (et al) got caught and is properly blocked. --  At am a  頭 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can't resist.
 * "Your argument suggests that every Mongolian editor would be expected to leave "long rants, with lots of capital letters, always edited afterwards to correct formatting errors with headings and indentation"
 * Quigley's evidence here is one post with somewhat long paragraphs and lots of capital letters from Monkh Naran (not edited afterwards), plus one post with lots of short paragraphs from Gantuya (edited afterwards, but no capital letters where they don't belong), plus one very short post from Monkh Naran (also edited for indendation). Even if double capital letters and indendation errors must be among the more trivial things in this world, I completely fail to see more than 25% of Quigley's alleged common patterns here.
 * "or be interested in historical Japan-Korea and China-Tibet disputes."
 * Again, one of them is interested in Korea, the other one in Tibet. Two places that have a lot of significance for Mongolians, but clearly two quite different places nonetheless. Seriously, this is only a pattern if you really really want it to be one.
 * Also, given that Ganaa is reasonably competent (more than me, anyway) in reading and writing Tibetan, I guess Quigley is not really in a good position to claim that Ganaa's interest in Tibet is less genuine than his.
 * "Even that every Mongolian editor follows around the editors Historiographer and Mathpianist93"
 * Re. Historiographer, it seems like you are simply taking Quigley's word for it? He might just as well claim that Historiographer followed Monkh Naran. I actually think there was not any interaction between the two before Monkh Naran made her first edit on that Japan–Korea disputes page.
 * And re. Mathpianist, could it be that Gantuya did just follow me?
 * "Every Mongolian editor calls their talk page a "house", and calls talk page messages "intrusions""
 * Quigley's evidence are these two diffs. In neither is there talk of a house, and only one of the two uses the word "intrusion". Another pattern just made up, and you fall for it.
 * "or habitually calls other editors "rude""
 * Seems like this is the first claim in your list that Quigley actually cared to support with one relevant link per accused sockpuppet. Of course some might still argue that one diff is not yet enough data to establish a pattern.
 * "every Mongolian editor edits the talk page posts of every other Mongolian editor?"
 * Only one of the two accused edited the other one's talk page, and in a situation that to me looks a lot like mockery of a user who demands a translation. In any case, it seems non-Mongolians do it too!
 * The point I am trying to make is you really should look at the evidence more carefully. From the long list of someone else's "observations" that you listed, only the bits about indentation and calling other people rude have any merit in that they are actually similar and supported by the diffs that are supplied as evidence. And even for those two observations two single diffs each are not a very solid basis to establish a pattern. I agree that if the situation were like you apparently concluded from Quigley's denunciation (with or without looking at the actual diffs?), this case would be closed and obvious. Unfortunately, it becomes a lot less obvious if you actually look at the evidence and not just at someone's interpretation of it. Yaan (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)