| Revision as of 19:58, 7 November 2024 editDavid A (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,380 edits →Arbcom case request← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:33, 7 November 2024 edit undoGirth Summit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators98,808 edits →Arbcom case request: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :. ] (]) 19:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | :. ] (]) 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. {{pb}}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 {{noping|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, and for our policies in general. Even now, however, the door would still be open for them to return however - 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 ], 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. ]] 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:33, 7 November 2024
Arbcom case request
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, and for our policies in general. Even now, however, the door would still be open for them to return however - 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)