User talk:BarkingFish
Indefinitely
Banned
Banned
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of September 2015 due to apparently being a twat.
Block Notice
 |
CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Mike V • Talk 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
Concerning my new indef:
@Courcelles: -
- Thank you for your alert to my block. I am unaware as to the reason for it, since I have not socked and all my present and past socks have been declared fully and in the open to the BASC. I trust you notified them of the block, @Mike V:. I have emailed them.
- I can see nothing added to the SPI to indicate any further investigations, or any sign of what I have done wrong or where, so if you would be kind enough to point me at what I am supposed to have done wrong, I will address it.
- I have been nothing but open and honest all the way through my previous appeal, I have even had the decency to notify the BASC of an account I last used more than 4 years ago. Since I'm being accused of something I KNOW I have not done wrong, I deserve to know where it's been investigated and by whom at least.
What does the Fish say? | Woof! 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did not place this block, but I do know why it was done. Checkuser has confirmed the link between your account and User:CharlieTheCabbie. Courcelles (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, technical evidence has confirmed your account to CharlieTheCabbie. I did notify the arbitration committee shortly after the block. Others have asked me to clarify that this is a reinstatement of the ban due to not adhering to the restriction of one account. Mike V • Talk 18:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Could I please ask where this was investigated, and why I wasn't given the chance to talk to anyone about the allegations before you just dropped on me? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your unblock conditions explicitly limited you to one account with no exceptions. Checkuser has confirmed you have used more than one account. What do you want to talk about? Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since it seems that judge and jury have already sat, what I'm about to say will probably mean very little. I categorically deny any connection to CharlieTheCabbie. I don't know them from a hole in the floor, OK? I want to know the following information: Who instigated the request for the CU, where it was discussed, why it was instigated (what caused someone to request it), and where the information on here is recorded. A checkuser can say what they like; I know different. I've just opened up and beared my soul to the whole of Wikipedia and a bunch of people I have never met. I've been fully honest all the way and love being back here. Why would I bugger it up after all that? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The checkuser evidence has been independently reviewed by at least two very experienced checkusers as showing a confirmed link between the two accounts. Very strong behavioural evidence has also been presented linking the two accounts, and was the reason for running the checkuser. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, thank you anyway. I still protest my innocence, but I guess that means precisely dick. It's been great working with Wikipedia, right through all the crap and hassle I've had to put up with, everything that's gone feet up and all the fun I've had sharing my work with others. Someday, I may just have the balls to ask to be let back in again, but after this time, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell. I'll still be around on other projects, but from Wikipedia, it's goodbye. You won't be hearing from me anymore. What does the Fish say? | Woof! 13:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The checkuser evidence has been independently reviewed by at least two very experienced checkusers as showing a confirmed link between the two accounts. Very strong behavioural evidence has also been presented linking the two accounts, and was the reason for running the checkuser. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since it seems that judge and jury have already sat, what I'm about to say will probably mean very little. I categorically deny any connection to CharlieTheCabbie. I don't know them from a hole in the floor, OK? I want to know the following information: Who instigated the request for the CU, where it was discussed, why it was instigated (what caused someone to request it), and where the information on here is recorded. A checkuser can say what they like; I know different. I've just opened up and beared my soul to the whole of Wikipedia and a bunch of people I have never met. I've been fully honest all the way and love being back here. Why would I bugger it up after all that? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your unblock conditions explicitly limited you to one account with no exceptions. Checkuser has confirmed you have used more than one account. What do you want to talk about? Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Could I please ask where this was investigated, and why I wasn't given the chance to talk to anyone about the allegations before you just dropped on me? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)