User talk:BarryBoggside
BarryBoggside (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block can frankly have only been the result of a clear and obvious breach of the updated advice for CheckUsers against fishing, which should by rights result in an immediate unblock, especially since that advice is designed not only to prevent privacy invasions pursuant to a block, but also to avoid forcing people unjustly blocked having to reveal personal data (such as living arrangements) as a condition of their unblocking. If the required "clear evidence" of "misuse" of multiple accounts exists beyond the illegitimately obtained post-facto Checkuser data, please explain what it is, although I am confident it does not, hence the appeal. There is nothing inherently abusive in the perfectly legitimate questions/comments I filed at that RfA, and no connection between those edits and the edits of Crash Dennis in any way. Pinging @Serial Number 54129: as an interested party. BarryBoggside (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not seem to be denying the connection with the blocked account, Crash Dennis. As such, there's nothing I nor any other unblock reviewer can do for you. If you are the same person behind that account, you are indeed violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. If you believe checkuser permissions have been abused, this is not the correct forum. There's literally nothing I could do for you. Instead, contact the Arbitration Committee; WP:ARBCOM explains how to do so. Yamla (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
BarryBoggside (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well, I was afraid this would quickly turn into an illogcal farce, and I half suspect that was the aim of the person who invaded my privacy in the first place. Certainly the sheer haste with which the above was dismissed, hardly enough time to even read the updated guidance, is concerning in of itself.
Let me put it this way, since you have clearly got things totally confused regarding what you are and are not empowered to do, and what is and is not an appropriate question to be asking me (or indeed the person who blocked me).
1. What is the precise nature of this block? Is it clearly marked as a CheckUser block, therefore something that can only be appealed to ArbCom. Or is it more accurate to say it is a standard block for alleged WP:EVADE, dressed up to give it the false sense of legitimacy (or unappealability) of a CheckUser block, in the hopes a reviewer would see the illegitimate as legitimate or see themselves powerless when they have in fact got all the power they need to overturn an abusive block.
2. If someone had not illegitimately invaded my privacy to reveal an alleged connection to Crash Dennis on technical grounds, is there any reason for an ordinary Administrator to suspect this account was guilty of block evasion, either because they are the same person as Crash Dennis, or are making edits on their behalf?
3. Was this account doing anything that would have remotely justified having a CheckUser run on it, given the updated advice issued precisely to prevent the sort of routine fishing block that Bbb23 was guilty of?
4. If the only reason for this block being placed is an illegitimate invasion of my privacy (should be the result of you pondering 2. and 3. carefully), and the person who placed it is not claiming any special privelage to place it or have it left in place without appeal to a higher authority (the logical inference of considering 1.), is there any moral, ethical or indeed policy basis, for making a condition of its removal, asking me questions that, if I were to answer them, would further invade my privacy?
5. How bad does it look for Wikipedia if it isn't possible to get a case of Admin abuse and privacy invasion as obvious as this rectified without having to go to ArbCom, especially when it happens so soon after they must have thought they had issued the very advice that would stop such abuses in their tracks?
Put it this way. If someone unblocks me now, given all of the above, how likely does it seem that the blocker is going to report you to ArbCom, or indeed make any kind of issue of it at all? If you're unsure, ask them for the answers that inevitably arise when considering the above. What was the reason for their check? What is the status of this block, re. appealing? I think you'll soon find out what they have done. I think they took a chance and placed an abusive block in the same fashion as the ones that used to be commonplace but are now deemed illegitimate, probably consulting nobody, hoping I wouldn't make an issue of it, and even if I did, I wouldn't know what I was talking about. Unluckily for them, I do.
So, well, here I am, making an issue of it. Users don't have many rights on Wikipedia, having their privacy respected is thankfully, one of them. Try and spend more than ten minutes on the issue this time, either Yamla or another Admin, please, otherwise I'll be forced to assume the authority of ArbCom over the local functionaries here, has been completely and utterly nullified, in a systemic fashion.
Decline reason:
Well, this is easy enough. I just re-ran my previous checkuser on Crash Dennis, and surprise, there you are. Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts; this is now a checkuser block (it wasn't before.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
Reminder: I'm not the blocking administrator, I simply reviewed your unblock request above. (1) You say this block is clearly marked as a CheckUser block. You might be correct, but I don't see this. Your blog log indicates this is a block for block evasion. I see no indication this is a checkuser block. Note that the blocking administrator, Materialscientist, does indeed have checkuser rights. Your user page (User:BarryBoggside), indicates the block is determined based on your contributions. Again, and I want to be clear, you might be correct that the block is based on checkuser evidence, I might just be missing where you see this. Or alternatively, it might not be documented as a checkuser block, but might indeed have been the result of checkuser evidence. (2) I'm not granting that a checkuser was run, or run illegitimately, on your account. Based on your contributions, I would strongly suspect you weren't a new user. However, I see nothing to connect you to Crash Dennis other than what I believe to be your admission in your unblock request (again, though, you might actually not be admitting this). (3) I'll refrain from commenting here, as I don't have checkuser access myself. (4) Given my comments on 2 and 3, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on 4. (5) I very, very strongly believe it would be inappropriate for me to take action here. I could have my admin rights stripped if I lift a checkuser block; we've been explicitly warned about this, though I don't have the citation handy. While it is unclear if this is a checkuser block (you say it is, you may be correct but I don't see this declared), there's still the problem of what I understand to be your admission of block evasion, in your unblock request. On that basis, I should also not lift your block. Now, you have raised a very serious concern. That concern should be addressed. However, it shouldn't be addressed by me, via the unblock template. Plausibly, it could be addressed in WP:ANI by the community, but frankly, I don't think that's a suitable venue. I think the only suitable venue is ARBCOM. That's my opinion, that ARBCOM is the way forward. It's my very, very firm belief that this cannot be addressed via the unblock process, as frustrating and annoying as that may (legitimately) be for you. I firmly believe I am prohibited from taking action here, given your claims of checkuser abuse and given your admission of block evasion (at least, I believe you've conceded that point), and that prohibition would apply to all other admins reviewing your unblock request. You may see other paths forward that don't involve ARBCOM, paths that I haven't considered; I just don't believe the unblock template is a path to address your concerns. --Yamla (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- TL,DR: It is clearly not officially a CheckUser block (per tag and log), but probably meant to look like one, to deter you. Ask for confirmation, and report them if you're not convinced. I'm not going to confirm or deny the accusation of block evasion (because doing so would be a further invasion of my privacy, rewarding Materialscientist's original privacy invasion) unless you clarify you're OK with that, and specify why. Doing the right thing here (simply undoing the effect of a privacy invasion) serves you and Wikipedia far more than upholding the frankly non-existent grounds for believing harm would arise from unblocking (indeed, what harm is alleged has or will occur if you cannot even reassure yourself I am who Materialscientist says I am?). ArbCom are not there to review every obviously bad block, but when they issue updated advice, they expect everyone on Wikipedia to ensure it is being followed, because not doing so affects everyone, not just the immediate victims like me. BarryBoggside (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're almost getting it. I call this a checkuser block because to my mind it can only have been the result of an illegitimate check. As you have perhaps now realised, Materialscientist has been very careful not to officially call it a CheckUser block, and you'll note the tag he placed on my user page directly contradicts the idea it is, implying as it does that you should be able to find evidence of my alleged block evading sock-puppetry in public contributions alone. I suspect he is just hoping you would see a CheckUser making a block, and assume it was a CheckUser block, as a means to make you feel like you're not empowered to even question it, much less lift it. I'm neither confirming or denying I am guilty of block evasion, I am merely pointing out that if you want me to answer that as a condition of unblocking, you would effectively be asking me to reveal private details I would not have been asked to reveal, if Materialscientist had not performed an illegitimate check, because then I wouldn't have been blocked in the first place. I will happily answer the question, if you explicitly acknowledge that is the situation you're agreeing to be a party to, as an Administrator, appreciating as you would then that it transforms the problem from a potentially singular failure to uphold the privacy policy, reversible by the system, to an institutional failure, embedded in the system. If you don't believe Materialscientist has any grounds for this block, namely if you can't see any evidence I am Crash Dennis from the public record, or am acting on his behalf, and if you don't see anything else in my contributions that marks me out as a block worthy user (assuming you accept that merely not looking like a new user is not grounds for blocking), then yes, you are empowered to reverse the block. I see no reason why you should be afraid of anybody in doing so, and I doubt you really believe you'd get the right answer from the community, given it seems obvious the majority strenuously rejected the idea that individual privacy trumps their desire to invade it, as seems obvious from reading the controversy surrounding the reasons for why the anti-fishing rule needed to be clarified recently in the first place. I suppose I could take this to ArbCom if you still feel powerless, but I feel like Wikipedia should be grown up enough not to have to do that for every single clearly abusive block, it being the equivalent of asking the Supreme Court to adjudicate on every single case of potential abuse of power. They exist merely to set and indeed clarify the law. They clarified it. Fishing is prohibited, and what I was doing is not grounds for a check. No private information is required for you to do the right thing here. I'm asking you merely to recognize that the only reason for this block is because the updated advice was ignored and an improper check was run, and therefore, the right thing to do, is return my account to the status quo ante - a user in good standing. Bearing in mind that upholding this block does actually mean the only way I could even bring this invasion of my privacy to the attention of ArbCom, would be by potentially revealing personal information, in the form of an email address. Easier for you to simply unblock me, surely, and you certainly then couldn't be blamed for making a bad situation worse, potentially transforming a singular instance of abuse by one Administrator, into an institutional failure to properly value my privacy over other far less important concerns. As policy dictates, before doing the right thing, your first port of call should be to ask Materialscientist what he thinks he's playing at, whether he is actually trying to deceive you or whether this really is an official CheckUser block. If he says it is, ask him what his grounds were, and if you don't like what you hear given the updated advice, then regardless of what happens to me, it is your duty as an Administrator to be the one to report it to ArbCom, who will then hopefully start doing more than just warn those CheckUsers who apparently think user's privacy is a secondary concern. BarryBoggside (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
BarryBoggside (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It clearly was a CheckUser block, an unjustified and unjustifiable invasion of my privacy, made all the more obvious by his astounding refusal to explain it. He got caught, bang to rights. If there was no check performed by him, what was the basis of his block? You can't answer, and rather obviously, you won't answer. Neither will he. Both as guilty as each other, the two people supposedly tasked with keeping each other in compliance with the rules. But if you want to cement the farce, the grounds for appeal become easier and more obvious now you have just put it on the record.... 1. On what grounds did you just perform a CheckUser on me? I want a privacy policy compliant answer. I presume you don't accept that legitimizing an illegitimate check is sufficient? The facts are still the facts - there is nothing in the history of this account that passes the threshold of the updated guidance from ArbCom explaining with very detailed examples, on what grounds you can check accounts. You used to be able to randomly fish any vaguely odd looking account that turns up at RfA, now you can't. Now you need "clear evidence" of "abuse of multiple accounts". So what was that evidence here? It doesn't exist. The contributions were perfectly constructive. If you offer no evidence, if your check is justified by the previous failure to offer evidence, then you have violated my privacy just as much as they did. And this is now a systemic failure. 2. So the results are official, and you are now going on record that there is a match, as a CheckUser, as if we're really meant to believe that's not what happened before, just without the record reflecting it. I should not have to tell a CheckUser that you require more than a technical match to justify a block for abuse of multiple accounts. You need to show evidence of abuse. So where is it? Bearing in mind there are obviously innocent explanations for it, such as a shared device. Had you considered that, and if so, are you going on record now as rejecting it? If so, why? Where is your proof in the contributions, that this account is controlled by the same person as Crash Dennis, or by someone operating it on their behalf? You don't have any. I'm frankly amazed you're even trying to pull this, and are being so blatant about it. But in a way I am glad you have shown this is now a systemic problem, that the CheckUsers as a group would rather rally around Materialscientist and cover his back, rather than do with him what they clearly failed to also do with Bbb23. That is why this is such a significant act. You think all you've done is just another stitch up. I bet that's what you think you've achieved here. So be it. Consider this my appeal to ArbCom. I expect you to pass it on, if you've got nothing to regret about what you just did and why, and I expect the result to be published here. And if they have your back, contrary to everything they said when issuing that advice, so it will be progressed, with the seriousness that any suspicion of ongoing systematic privacy invasion should be, given Bbb23 was at it for literally years. BarryBoggside (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since the entire argument appears to be: "I did the thing you blocked me for, but you shouldn't have been able to spot that I did," I'm going to point you at WP:NOTTHEM. decline this appeal, and remove your talkpage access for good measure. If at some point you want to actually address your own behaviour, you can do so via UTRS. Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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.