User talk:Lisa.davis

Dear Visitor,

I prefer messages on an article's talk page. I do not respond here.

Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Hinduism Award
		For transforming the articles on the 18 Parvas of the Mahabharata to good referenced and readable articles from 1-2 line stubs they were. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lisa.davis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an unblock because (1) the relationship between my account and the wiki accounts of two other individuals (AmyNorth and Mark.Muesse) was disclosed in 2014. 1a 1b (2) I have no relationship to ApostleVonColorado or any other wiki accounts except the two disclosed. I opened my Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons account in early 2012 (2a, 2b). I welcomed and encouraged Amy and Mark to edit Wikipedia in late 2013, discussing with them the wiki policies and reviewing their drafts. I was trying to help. Both stopped editing for different reasons. Editing Wikipedia as a hobby initially appealed to both Amy and Mark. The wiki disputes did not (Amy, whose user page mentions her struggles with cancer, passed away a while ago). (3) The SPI case linked in the block notice on my user page is predominantly about ApostleVonColorado and Ms Sarah Welch. The allegation that I am ApostleVonColorado or others is incorrect. I invite a checkuser. (4) The circumstantial evidence presented against me is vacuous. One must expect someone who learns a new language that he or she would read literature in that language, become interested and knowledgeable about that culture. This is natural. This is neither odd nor evidence of sockpuppetry. This is a part of the SPI case that alleges that I am ApostleVonColorado because I edited a few articles whose originals are in Sanskrit language and the Culture of India article. (5) A part of the SPI case presented alleges that I am Ms Sarah Welch. Sarah has never edited many of the articles I have (5a). The article where there is the largest overlap between her editing and my editing is the Tapas (Indian religions) article. Sarah deleted most of my contributions (5b, 5c, I do not know how to compare her last version and my last version). While the article is much expanded and an improvement over where I left it, the Tapas article shows Sarah and I have difference in our approach. (6) While Amy disclosed the relationship between her editing and my editing in 2014, and Mark told me he also did (but I am as yet unable to find the link), I admit I made a mistake. I should have also disclosed the link between the two accounts and my own on my user page. I understand my error and I will be more careful and prompt in future in disclosing any accounts where I review the contribution drafts offline. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Bbb23: Is there any light a checkuser can shed on the explanation above? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Lisa.davis and Ms Sarah Welch are

Unrelated/

Inconclusive. Inconclusive is because two of Lisa's IPs are owned by a public institution and the third is a corporate IP. However, Lisa's and Sarah's physical locations are different, and Sarah has "always" (for the period data has been available) used the same consumer ISP.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: as the blocking admin, given the information above, do you object to unblocking? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Am v. real-world busy today. I will need to look at this carefully. Will revert asap - hopefully tomorrow. Ben Mac Dui 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the relationship between this account and AmyNorth is not relevant to the issues at hand.
It is not clear to me why it would be thought necessary to disclose the relationship between this account and Mark.muesse. What is that relationship? Were you using the same computer? Collaborating off-wiki in ways that might transgress policy?
You say “The circumstantial evidence presented against me is vacuous”. It may be that incorrect conclusions have been drawn from that evidence but I’d say it was difficult to ignore.
There may well be some differences in approach between the MSW account and this one – but can you in any way explain the obvious similarities in editing style that (having compared them with numerous other users) are shared by ApostleVonColorado, Lisa.davis, Ms Sarah Welch, Mark.Muesse, M Tracy Hunter and MissMargaretBlack but no others from the list of comparators?
@Bbb23: CheckUser is a powerful tool but it has its limitations. I understand that what is being said is that the IP addresses that MSW has most recently used and that for this account in recent weeks are different. I presume we have no way of checking whether or not they bore any similarity at the time Lisa.davies was an active editor. I also realise there are strict limits to what can be said. Nonetheless, can you clarify what is meant by “Sarah's physical locations are different”. How different? 1 mile, 10 miles, 1000 miles?
I hope you will pardon my caution here but this is a complex case. It seems that (perhaps for perfectly valid reasons) MSW intends to ‘clear her name’ and I think a full understanding of the facts is essential. Ben Mac Dui 18:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: It's more than just the locations being different, but to answer your question: about 1000 miles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to obtain additional technical data. If Lisa.davis edits from her home on her home computer (assuming this is possible), I will then have reliable non-institutional data to compare to MSW's.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) was making unblock request almost 2 months before[1] this unblock request was made here. In this unblock request I am seeing the repetition of same argument of MSW, that because these accounts didn't shared a number of the articles that's why these accounts are different persons. I find it unconvincing.

None of your diffs[2][3] are showing any disclosure or mention of your connection with Mark.Muesse account. The two links that of the versions that you have cited about Tapas (Indian religions),[4][5] (in place of citing the diffs showing the edit[6][7]), shows no deletion of your content by MSW, contrary to your claim that "Sarah deleted most of my contributions".

In this kind of situation, the response should be swift but it has been a few days now that Lisa.davis was asked a number of questions and there has been still no response from Lisa.davis. Given the CheckUser results above ("unrelated/inconclusive"), falsification of evidence in the unblock request, strong evidence presented on SPI and consensus on ANI to block the accounts,[8] I don't see any reason to accept this unblock request or even think about challenging the existing block. Capitals00 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]