User talk:Dsmatthews

January 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining why both this account and QuietOwl are concerned with the editing of the same user? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * DoRD I saw that user "Safe My Edit" appear and have a high skill level, and users ask about it specifically, I also noticed that they were evasive so I simply asked a direct question. The user QuietOwl looks at my edits from time to time and fixes my typos etc., if they did something based on what they read then you need to examine the logic and validity of that action. I had not seen that linked comment they posted but I can see why they may have that question, which has still not been answered when other actions have taken place. We are not the same person and no amount of innuendo can substitute for the truth. What is the normal way of managing a multi-user LAN situation?Dsmatthews (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SQL I do not have another account and I have asked what the process is for proving that multiple accounts using one LAN are unique, why was this information not provided? How can you deny a request without answering such a fundamental and directly put question, how is that behavior ethical and conscientious, how is it in the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines as all admin actions are expected to be? There is nothing that I personally have in common with any other account other that a shared internet gateway so the claims re checkuser are bogus, you can't tell lies to a person if they know the truth! Are you posting such false claims, not to communicate to me, but with the eyes of others in mind? If I wanted to cheat I would just use another IP, do you want me to make a post here using that method just to prove the point? I am serious, I can demonstrate that if I wanted to have multiple accounts I would not do anything as obvious as using the same IP. The only thing I share with all of the other users on this LAN is languages (en, es) and culture. otherwise we are unique humans with our own minds, options, and human rights. This situation is ridiculous and I can't believe that an organisation such as wikipedia could be so "dumb and or deluded" as to not be able to fairly resolve such a quandary. WE CAN PROVE THAT WE ARE UNIQUE HUMANS, please just tell us what the method prefered by wikipedia is!Dsmatthews (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That is because Checkusers cannot reveal personally identifying information barring an extreme situation. This is not one of those situations. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jéské Couriano That is completely illogical, I'm accused of using two accounts, but I can't be shown the evidence, that it is really just me in both cases (and not two people, which is the truth), to protect the privacy of the other me? Furthermore that has nothing to do with the fact that the evidence of abuse has not been presented so the number of accounts per person is irrelevant as it is only a problem if they are used in a way that can be demonstrated to be abuse. i.e. Your argument is not lucid, or relevant to the nature of the request I have made to be unblocked. Wikipedia needs to prove that only one person used multiple accounts from my LAN IP address, and that it was done in a manner that was abusive or they have no case to block either account and the block is nothing more than baseless libel.Dsmatthews (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because, again, per the privacy policy, if the situation is as you say they would need to reveal the PII of those other people and yourself in order to entertain your demand to look at the evidence. What you are asking the Checkusers to do is publicly out both you and them in a non-emergency scenario, which is reason enough for a Checkuser's access to those tools to be revoked. They cannot satisfy your request and keep their tools, not to mention that even if they did do so and you're lying about not having multiple accounts, they've just given you all the information you need to work around Checkuser next time. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 03:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jéské Couriano I am already a publicly known person as the link in my COI declaration identifies me in order to prove the extent of any COI r.e. K-3D, so again your argument is not lucid, or relevant, and a ban on me without proof is still baseless libel. They also know that I control the LAN in question and so there is no privacy issue with the other 6 users (I know exactly who they are so I know they've not broken any rules.), the irony is that in suggesting there is another user (who's privacy needs protecting) you are admitting that the block is invalid and the other account is not a sockpuppet. Furthermore there is still no proof that any user on my LAN did anything wrong. List one action that is a blockable offence by another user of my LAN, you can't so Wikipedia has no case. Dsmatthews (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue instead that you seem to be unwilling to listen to what I am trying to tell you, so I will repeat it for a third time: To provide such evidence would be to out you and everyone else using that LAN setup, and so evidence cannot be provided. Evidence won't be forthcoming because the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy forbids exposing personally identifying information barring an emergency situation, which you'd likely understand if you bothered to read any of the links to it I've provided. It doesn't matter if they know you control it; exposing it would still breach the privacy policy and cost functionaries their tools. Also, I worded the last responce the way I did because I was, and still am, assuming good faith. Whether or not I believe the block is valid or not is immaterial (I'm no admin and even if I was I still would not be privy to whatever evidence the Checkusers relied on); I'm only here to explain why your demand for evidence cannot be satisfied. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 04:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jéské Couriano That logic is still broken as they can send the evidence to the people concerned via their private email address (and I have heard that they have contacted them and know who they are, and therefore that there is proof that they are not myself) and then those people can publish it themselves (as they see fit and within their rights), furthermore there is still no evidence that anything was done by any account on my LAN anyway so the sockpuppet claim is moot (seriously don't you get that part?). So you see we, the people on the LAN with the unethical editing block, know that they know that we are multiple people and we know there is no evidence of wrongdoing either. Should we publish (on another website, that we control) those emails from the wikipedia admins and prove they implemented a false block and that it is libelous?Dsmatthews (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ho hum, now I see why was really blocked, bizarre backward logic so that other people would not need to account for their actions.
See the comment by Sandstein. "The DRV nominator... has now been checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. In view of this I don't think I need to comment further."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_January_13#Editing_break

How convenient that they claim that this somehow makes them no longer accountable to the facts, regardless of the source. Facts are facts!

Furthermore there has been no proven sockpuppetry, the other account on our LAN here is another human (1/7), the admins simply deny their existence, which is one of the most offensive things you can do to a human. In fact in some countries it is probably against the law in some respects. :-(

That is pretty "evil" I hope the truth comes out, well it will eventually even if it is not here on wikipedia, and I hope the people responsible are held to account, even if it is for simply being incompetent admins who don't even follow their own guidelines. You'd think they'd make them sit an exam or something before they were given so much power, they should also face a psychological evaluation, psychometric tests. Obviously not, and look at the problems it causes. I bet that they have so little insight that they don't even realise how repulsive the average, "normal", person finds such behavior. This is why wikipedia has a diversity problem amongst it's editors. They may as well put up a big sign screeching "Normies GTFO". Dsmatthews (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked
Based on the explanation provided by QuietOwl, your account has been unblocked. Before editing Wikipedia, it is important that you are aware of and understand our policy on "meatpuppetry" (ensure that you follow the link and read the page). Meatpuppetry is where multiple accounts, but different people, work together or agree with each other by arrangement off Wikipedia. Recruiting editors off Wikipedia to support you is prohibited and will lead to a block from editing. The appearance of that occurring with Safe My Edit on Bbb23's talk page is the big reason you were blocked. Users on Wikipedia should act in their individual capacity, rather than editing under the direction or influence of others. If two closely connected users appear to be editing in a similar way they may be considered as a single user for Wikipedia's dispute resolution purposes, see WP:SHARE for more information.

To hopefully avoid a similar issue in the future I've noted on your user page that you share an IP address with QuietOwl. If, however, your future editing gives the appearance that you are editing in collaboration with another user to support each other you will be blocked from editing again without any further warning. If you have any questions, please let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "meatpuppetry" what a vulgar and phallic sounding term. Dsmatthews (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)