User talk:David A
Arbcom case request
[edit]Hey - that case request isn't the place to discuss a sockpuppet investigation, so I'll do it here -suggest you self revert over there.
Long story short - yes, blocked as a sock. This is based on some pretty damning behavioural observations, I'm as close to being certain as I can be without a CU hit (which I wouldn't necessarily expect after two years, people move house, change ISP providers, etc). I'm not going to set out the evidence I'm public - that teaches sockpuppeteers how to evade detection. I'll explain off wiki to any member of arbcom, check user or admin considering an unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 19:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I will self-revert then. It is definitely too bad though. I like Carmen. She has done a lot of good work here, and seems to have very good intentions. David A (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have self-reverted now. David A (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Honestly, I don't have a view on the quality of their work, or their intentions. Someone made a report at SPI, making some observations about similar esoteric interests over at Wikidata. I looked at their contribs, and those of their previous socks, and the more I looked the more similarities I saw and the more suspicious I became, until I was entirely convinced - there are just too many pointers for it to conceivably be a coincidence. So, then we come down to the question of whether or not someone should remain blocked, just because they were blocked years ago. I'm afraid that I personally (and I have the weight of policy behind me on this) usually come down on the side of 'yes'. They were originally blocked for using multiple accounts to stack !votes in their direction in deletion discussions and the like; they probably could have waited a bit then appealed the block, but no, they created a new bunch of socks and carried on as they were. At that point it's harder to view them in a positive light. At this point, I think that CarmenEsparzaAmoux is their twelfth account that we are aware of - sure, as far as I can see they haven't been operating multiple accounts on enwiki and within the CU window, but this is someone who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the integrity of the consensus-building process, and for our policies in general. Even now, however, the door would still be open for them to return - they would need to either convince another administrator that I'm wrong about their account (that's always possible), or they could come clear about their past behaviour, commit to abiding by the rules, and probably wait out a six-month time-out in the sin bin, but it could happen. Based on their past form however, I would not be at all surprised if they simply walk away from that account and start using another one in a couple of weeks in hopes that this time, we won't catch them. Girth Summit (blether) 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I suppose that seems to make sense. I am just surprised and rather sad that this happened, as Carmen added lots of reliable information that highlighted crimes against humanity, which I think is important to make publicly available, to hopefully help create a more well-informed, kinder, freer, and more humane world in the long run. David A (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll say again that I don't have a view on the quality of their work - I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at the articles edited, and the types of subject they got involved with. I'll also give you an update - a couple of hours ago they logged into the Carmen account, saw that it was blocked, and then logged into the master account and a couple of other blocked accounts. I don't know why they did that - maybe they panicked, maybe it was a sort of admission of guilt, or maybe it was a 'fuck you' directed at me, or all of us. But it removed any doubt from my mind 'Carmen' is a long term abuser who has gone by many names on this project, and lied again and again and again to get what they want. I'm sorry, this is never nice when it's an account that one has come to trust, but it's true. Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I am very sorry to hear that. The Carmen account did a lot of very good humanitarian volunteer work in Wikipedia. David A (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, I had already almost completely abandoned all political editing, due to not being emotionally able to handle being continuously bombarded with dystopian horror, and now it is turning very personally dangerous for me and likely my family and friends and workmates as well, with news articles attacking specific Wikipedia members and being tweeted by Elon Musk in front of 53 million people, and those Wikipedia editors allegedly being systematically terrorised IRL as a result. So I think now would be a good time to completely drop out from political editing and only focusing on entertainment again. David A (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly how to respond to this. Certainly, I would advise you not to edit on areas that bring you stress, or which you don't enjoy. I don't know any of the specifics you're talking about, and I'll help if I can with any onwiki abuse, but I can't claim any ability to help with what Elon Musk is up to offwiki. One observation: we're here volunteering our time to write an encyclopedia, not for humanitarian or political purposes. That doesn't mean that we should stand by and allow others to distort things in our articles, quite the opposite; but at the same time, you should not feel that you are under any personal obligation to ensure that our articles reflect a particular perspective. I'm not accusing of any inappropriate conduct (seriously - I'm in no position to do that, this discussion is the only interaction I'm aware of having had with you, and I haven't looked at your contribs), but there are some points at WP:RGW that might be worth reflecting on. I genuinely don't mean to cause any offense by that, just a thought based on your last comment. Best wishes Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, the crucial issue is that BilledMammal's extensive work here in Wikipedia to catalogue the activity of all editors who have a differing perspective than himself regarding the conflict between the Israeli government and the Palestinians, was apparently quickly submitted by somebody to a pro-Israeli government journalist, after which the information was quickly retweeted by Elon Musk, who will soon have full control over the United States economy, in front of 52.7 million people, while attacking Wikipedia, after which BilledMammal waited until right after the U.S. election, which Donald Trump won, as Benjamin Netanyahu wished, to initiate a process to attack several of the editors that he had catalogued to the poor Arbitration Committee, who now have little choice but to comply, with the threat of immense social agitation pressure and U.S. government legal and financial intervention if they do not. And all of this combined sends my pattern-recognition/paranoia alarm bells ringing, given that I am just a private citizen who wants to help make this world a kinder place, where innocent children are not casually massacred, not somebody remotely suited to vainly try to fight against the collected forces of AIPAC, Mossad, the Republican voter army, and the United States government itself. David A (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: A question if I may, and I hope that it is not out of order, but given the following information, is it possible that the BilledMammal account is also a sockpuppet of a previously banned editor? [1] David A (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Have you taken a look at this? David A (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi - I'm afraid I haven't looked at it. I didn't receive a notification about any of your posts from after my last reply - from the page history, I see that you added the ping template after posting your original note on 27 November - that doesn't work I'm afraid, for a notification to be issued you need to add the template in a new line, and sign the post. Don't ask me why...
- As to the suggestion that BilledMammal is a sock, I don't have any view on that. I work the SPI queue - I respond to reports as they are made, based on the evidence presented. If a report was made there with sufficient evidence, I (or one of the other admins and clerks who manage that queue) will take a look at it, but I don't intend to start a sua sponte investigation into someone's account based on an unevidenced suggestion. Girth Summit (blether) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Okay. No problem, and thank you for your reply. David A (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Can you link to a page where such requests can be made please? David A (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reports are submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. There is a guide to filing cases here. If you haven't filed a case before, my personal advice to people is generally to use Twinkle - it's one of the options in the ARV dialog, and handles all the paperwork for you - you just need to indicate which accounts you believe at the master, the puppet, and then type out your evidence. Girth Summit (blether) 10:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Thank you for your help. David A (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reports are submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. There is a guide to filing cases here. If you haven't filed a case before, my personal advice to people is generally to use Twinkle - it's one of the options in the ARV dialog, and handles all the paperwork for you - you just need to indicate which accounts you believe at the master, the puppet, and then type out your evidence. Girth Summit (blether) 10:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, the crucial issue is that BilledMammal's extensive work here in Wikipedia to catalogue the activity of all editors who have a differing perspective than himself regarding the conflict between the Israeli government and the Palestinians, was apparently quickly submitted by somebody to a pro-Israeli government journalist, after which the information was quickly retweeted by Elon Musk, who will soon have full control over the United States economy, in front of 52.7 million people, while attacking Wikipedia, after which BilledMammal waited until right after the U.S. election, which Donald Trump won, as Benjamin Netanyahu wished, to initiate a process to attack several of the editors that he had catalogued to the poor Arbitration Committee, who now have little choice but to comply, with the threat of immense social agitation pressure and U.S. government legal and financial intervention if they do not. And all of this combined sends my pattern-recognition/paranoia alarm bells ringing, given that I am just a private citizen who wants to help make this world a kinder place, where innocent children are not casually massacred, not somebody remotely suited to vainly try to fight against the collected forces of AIPAC, Mossad, the Republican voter army, and the United States government itself. David A (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly how to respond to this. Certainly, I would advise you not to edit on areas that bring you stress, or which you don't enjoy. I don't know any of the specifics you're talking about, and I'll help if I can with any onwiki abuse, but I can't claim any ability to help with what Elon Musk is up to offwiki. One observation: we're here volunteering our time to write an encyclopedia, not for humanitarian or political purposes. That doesn't mean that we should stand by and allow others to distort things in our articles, quite the opposite; but at the same time, you should not feel that you are under any personal obligation to ensure that our articles reflect a particular perspective. I'm not accusing of any inappropriate conduct (seriously - I'm in no position to do that, this discussion is the only interaction I'm aware of having had with you, and I haven't looked at your contribs), but there are some points at WP:RGW that might be worth reflecting on. I genuinely don't mean to cause any offense by that, just a thought based on your last comment. Best wishes Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll say again that I don't have a view on the quality of their work - I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at the articles edited, and the types of subject they got involved with. I'll also give you an update - a couple of hours ago they logged into the Carmen account, saw that it was blocked, and then logged into the master account and a couple of other blocked accounts. I don't know why they did that - maybe they panicked, maybe it was a sort of admission of guilt, or maybe it was a 'fuck you' directed at me, or all of us. But it removed any doubt from my mind 'Carmen' is a long term abuser who has gone by many names on this project, and lied again and again and again to get what they want. I'm sorry, this is never nice when it's an account that one has come to trust, but it's true. Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I suppose that seems to make sense. I am just surprised and rather sad that this happened, as Carmen added lots of reliable information that highlighted crimes against humanity, which I think is important to make publicly available, to hopefully help create a more well-informed, kinder, freer, and more humane world in the long run. David A (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Honestly, I don't have a view on the quality of their work, or their intentions. Someone made a report at SPI, making some observations about similar esoteric interests over at Wikidata. I looked at their contribs, and those of their previous socks, and the more I looked the more similarities I saw and the more suspicious I became, until I was entirely convinced - there are just too many pointers for it to conceivably be a coincidence. So, then we come down to the question of whether or not someone should remain blocked, just because they were blocked years ago. I'm afraid that I personally (and I have the weight of policy behind me on this) usually come down on the side of 'yes'. They were originally blocked for using multiple accounts to stack !votes in their direction in deletion discussions and the like; they probably could have waited a bit then appealed the block, but no, they created a new bunch of socks and carried on as they were. At that point it's harder to view them in a positive light. At this point, I think that CarmenEsparzaAmoux is their twelfth account that we are aware of - sure, as far as I can see they haven't been operating multiple accounts on enwiki and within the CU window, but this is someone who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the integrity of the consensus-building process, and for our policies in general. Even now, however, the door would still be open for them to return - they would need to either convince another administrator that I'm wrong about their account (that's always possible), or they could come clear about their past behaviour, commit to abiding by the rules, and probably wait out a six-month time-out in the sin bin, but it could happen. Based on their past form however, I would not be at all surprised if they simply walk away from that account and start using another one in a couple of weeks in hopes that this time, we won't catch them. Girth Summit (blether) 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Gaza Genocide talk page
[edit]Your comment that Tribalist incredulity is not a valid counterpoint to that.
should probably be struck.[2] It appears to be a personal attack on another editor. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is it a personal attack to state that incredulity is not a valid counterpoint to extremely elaborate blatant evidence? And she has systematically only shown concern for the wellbeing of Israeli hostages, not the enormously larger number of killed Palestinian children, and a lack of uniform concern for human lives in general, regardless of artificially induced "us versus them" "sides" is a textbook word definition of tribalism as far as I am aware, especially as she has also given much more blatant insults to people in Wikipedia concerned about human rights in the past if I remember correctly. How is this statement of fact a personal insult? However, to start with I will remove the word "tribalist", as I am uncertain in that regard. David A (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David A: The "tribalist" remark is what crossed the line for me personally, since it implied the affiliation of the person with a group is why they supported a certain view. Thanks for removing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. David A (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Chess was quicker than I was, but we already had this discussion before: please stop commenting about external motives of other editors, it’s inappropriate and negatively impacts the editing environments for everyone. FortunateSons (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was basically just reiterating what she has stated herself, and there are rational limits to how far language can be contorted through communication without lying, but alright then. David A (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you feel like it’s not possible to respond politely and in good faith, I believe that it would be beneficial to either just address the point made or not respond at all to such comments. FortunateSons (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am almost always very polite, and there is a difference between good faith and blind faith by shutting down all blatantly obvious logical observation ability. David A (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that, but I think referring to another editors statement as you have here isn't. Whether or not one considers another editors motive to be cleary perceivable through
blatantly obvious logical observation ability
, we aren't permitted to comment on them in this sort of manner. While our social policies do have limits (WP:PACT), this isn't even close here. FortunateSons (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- Well, I think that simply reiterating what they have stated themself in the past seems harmless, but I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree. David A (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that, but I think referring to another editors statement as you have here isn't. Whether or not one considers another editors motive to be cleary perceivable through
- I am almost always very polite, and there is a difference between good faith and blind faith by shutting down all blatantly obvious logical observation ability. David A (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you feel like it’s not possible to respond politely and in good faith, I believe that it would be beneficial to either just address the point made or not respond at all to such comments. FortunateSons (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was basically just reiterating what she has stated herself, and there are rational limits to how far language can be contorted through communication without lying, but alright then. David A (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @David A: The "tribalist" remark is what crossed the line for me personally, since it implied the affiliation of the person with a group is why they supported a certain view. Thanks for removing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)