Aaron Bandler

email

We can have that conversation if you want, but I'm not having it over private email. Here is fine with me if you want. Though given your twitter feed I don't actually think you're interested in an honest recounting of what is going on in these parts, but all the same we can have that conversation here if you want. nableezy - 13:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do want to have it here though, you should definitely leave out any links or direct quotes to what could be considered off-wiki harassment. nableezy - 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I am more than happy to have that conversation here. You can start by answering my questions about The Kingfisher and TIG. Aaron Bandler (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did I think the Kingfisher was NoCal? I'd rather not go into the things that make me think that an editor is NoCal as the artist formerly known as User:Isarig is still very much active around these parts and Id rather avoid giving him a blueprint on how to avoid getting caught, but what drew my attention was the general attitude of the editor and the timing of his edits. That made me start looking for more commonalities and when I thought there was enough for a check I filed a report. Why do I doubt that he's NoCal now? Well I dont entirely think he is not NoCal, but I am not as sure as I was back then. Do I regret reporting him? Not especially, no, given that he immediately started socking and lying about it. Why exactly should one trust the word of an admitted liar? Because that is what he is, an admitted liar. But in the mental gymnastics that your questions indicate you have mastered, Im the problem here. I cant say Ive ever checked the latters website (and Ive slightly modified your comment as that is still a bit too close to linking to a harassment site). I was notified about a harassment campaign and I know that others have been outed, but do I care that the most hysterical and generally racist and bigoted of the Internet Brigade of the Defenders of Israel™ thinks lowly of me? Nah. Do I think I am either vile or ruthless? Nah. It's been my experience that there exists a group of people who cannot win on the facts or the sources in their efforts to paint Israel as the savior for all humanity that we all know it truly is, and they get upset when their efforts are stymied. My edits here are invariably neutral, neutral as defined by WP:NPOV, and extremely well sourced. And when somebody is unable to remove black and white facts (eg the West Bank including EJ is occupied territory, that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, very basic things that are not in dispute outside of the minds of the hasbros) they lash out. So what is my response to the allegations? A chuckle mostly. nableezy - 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Ok so then why are you not as sure that Kingfisher is NoCal? Does it have anything to do with Kingfisher claiming that because he's an Orthodox Jew his editing times don't match up with other NoCal socks? Aaron Bandler (talk)

NoCal has had different socks edit at different times. There was a period in which he would have one sock editing primarily during working hours on the West Coast and another primarily during non-working hours, so I dont think that the Kingfisher not editing during the Sabbath on the West Coast is dispositive that he isnt NoCal. His editing times do in fact match up with other socks, Im not sure where youre getting the idea that they dont from. As for why I have doubts that I didnt have before, I cant really describe it, but if you read somebody's writing long enough, and with NoCal its what a dozen years or something, you can kind of hear a voice in their writing. The Kingfisher sounded like NoCal to me, but now it feels like a slightly different voice. nableezy - 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Ok so how exactly did all this NoCal100 socking begin, and what prompted you to start looking out for NoCal socks? Aaron Bandler (talk)

Some of this predates my time here, but User:Former user 2, who Isarig was vanished to in 2008 was the original account. He started multiple accounts shortly after, the two most active being User:NoCal100 and User:Canadian Monkey. Both of those accounts were topic-banned during the same arbitration case, a case that saw the indefinite banning of 5 "pro-P" editors and 1 other "pro-I" editor besides NoCal and his other account. When those two accounts were found to be operated by the same person (here is that investigation) I was kind of astonished as to how he had gotten away with it and how he had been so effective in his goals. He was able to get 5 editors banned largely on the basis of edit-wars that he stoked with both accounts and because he was, and is, willing to continue lying and socking he had no real negative impact to his own "side". And he continues to do the same things, instigating edit-wars with socks to get his perceived opponents banned. And his socks, not me or my editing or whatever conspiracy about some power I have lol, are what led to the 30/500 rule and how locked down these articles are. I wouldnt really say that I look out for NoCal socks. I read a lot of these talk pages, I see the edits, and if somebody feels like NoCal again Ill take a look to see if certain things match up. If they do Ill file a report and then its up to the CU to decide if a. theres enough evidence to actually merit a check, and b. if they do check whether or not the results add to that evidence enough to merit a block. nableezy - 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: That's all helpful, thanks. Have you accused Wiki editors of being socks of users other than NoCal? How many of those that you have accused of being NoCal socks share your POV vs. those that didn't? Aaron Bandler (talk)

Well the person behind NoCal100 doesnt exactly share my personal viewpoint, so that question does not make a whole lot of sense. Why would I accuse somebody of being a NoCal sock when they *dont* espouse similar viewpoints and ways of airing those viewpoints? nableezy - 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC) added dont later

Oh, and yes to the first question. nableezy - 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Ok then I'll rephrase the question: how many of those that you have accused of being socks in general (not just NoCal) share your POV vs. those that didn't? Aaron Bandler (talk)

Likely none. I'm not actually aware of that many socks on this side of ledger. I know before my time there was a user known as PalestineRemembered who apparently started socking. I think there were a couple of other socks but nothing sustained like either NoCal or a few others on that side of the wall, er security barrier. nableezy - 18:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It appears that ARBCOM has reinstated The Kingfisher https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Kingfisher&curid=59831572&diff=996819828&oldid=881331201 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UberVegan#It's_a_beautiful_day... any comment? Aaron Bandler (talk)

Not really, I accept that they found him not to be a sock of NoCal100. I did say I wasnt as sure of it already, didnt I? I dont take it personally if a hunch I have turns out to be either incorrect or rejected. nableezy - 19:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think I was wrong on him being NoCal at this point. I do not think I was wrong on him being a sock though, and I'm gathering evidence on that. Hell, I kinda think he's one of the people behind TIG. nableezy - 19:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Response to your E-Mail Questions

The Arbitration Committee recently received a request for information about the unblock of The Kingfisher. After reviewing all available evidence, we concluded that an unblock was appropriate. The Committee is bound by confidentiality requirements and cannot disclose private evidence in its possession.

The Arbitration Committee is a group of independent, community-elected editors who are experienced administrators charged with final review over certain disputes. The Committee holds a mandate to make decisions when private or sensitive information relevant to the case precludes public discussion. The only arbitrators eligible to participate in decision making in any case are those who have no connection to the original block or dispute in question.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)