User talk:CdnGael2018

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CdnGael2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22133 was submitted on Jul 21, 2018 07:58:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by administrators, including Berean, that I could continue editing if I created a user account. I have not committed any sock-puppetry at all since the block that expired on June 29. I never intend to again. There is another IP (ending in /64), as you know, which accidentally shows up as my IP when editing sometimes until it reverts to to the IP starting in 174. I apologize for any issues caused by this, but I have not violated any Wikipedia policies at all since the block expired on June 29th. Please reconsider removing the block associated with this account. CdnGael2018 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CdnGael2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been told by administrators that if I created a user account, I would be able to edit. See here: [1] "You say you will no longer edit. As such, there's no reason to lift this block. If you do wish to edit, you've been told how to do so and there'd still be no reason to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)"

Decline reason:

The suggestion to create an account is aimed at innocent editors who happen to have been caught in an IP or range block aimed at someone else. But it seems clear to me that you are the person targeted by the IP blocks, and so you are not eligible for that consideration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 22 July 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.

Right. But then Berean Hunter pointed out that you are actually the person being targeted by the block, and have been engaging in block evasion. As such, you are not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have pointed to your address after I left evidence yesterday that shows that you did evade your block by using the /64 address. You were blocked from May 29 to June 29 and yet you made these edits from your 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3::/64 address:

You haven't been truthful at all. I also believe that you are a long-blocked sockmaster as I wrote on your IP talk page.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How am I a "long-blocked sockmaster"? I was not evading ANY blocks until being blocked from May 29 to June 29, so there is no basis at all for that assertion. As for the block between May 29 and June 29, I have been completely truthful, and admitted that I edited under 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3::/64. I was not given a fair hearing for the original block, and was still able to edit, so I did under this automatically generated IP only two or three times. It was clearly wrong to do so, and I sincerely apologize. I would please ask that you reconsider this indefinite block, in that I did not commit a massive amount of edits with this random, temporary, automatically generated IP. If I was such a "serial sockmaster", I could have kept editing throughout June, but realized I was circumventing the block and ceased editing until the block expired. Furthermore, since the block ended on June 29, I have not violated any Wikipedia policies whatsoever, and have now created an official account. Therefore, I believe an indefinite ban is far too harsh and believe another one-month ban would suffice. I have also given you my word I will not circumvent this block, nor intentionally violate any Wikipedia policies in the future. CdnGael2018 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CdnGael2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see paragrah above. I have 1) apologized 2) shown that I did not circumvent the previous block to a significant degree, 3) not violated any Wikipedia policies since the initial block ended on June 29th, while assuring you this would continue, and 4) have now created a user account

Decline reason:

A: Answers to your points in this request. (1) All sorts of blocked editors "apologise" if they think it will get them unblocked, but it doesn't mean that they will change their ways. (2) I'm not going to get into a debate on whether your block evasion was "to a significant degree" or not, but you have evaded blocks. (3) Yes you have. (4) Oh, well, that makes all the difference. Evading a block is perfectly all right so long as you use an account to do it, and kinds of editing that would be totally unacceptable if done from IP editing are completely acceptable if done from an account, so I'd better rush to unblock you as quickly as possible. Or maybe not. B: You have a long history of disruptive and unconstructive editing, and unblocking you would not benefit the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 21 August 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.

CdnGael2018 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above you said "There is another IP (ending in /64), as you know, which accidentally shows up as my IP when editing sometimes", and now you say you "admitted that I edited under 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3::/64". If those two statements refer to the same IP range, they would seem to be contradictory. Can you please explain? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily explain, although I did partially already. I read Wikipedia quite a bit, and don't just simply edit, and sometimes when I have edited just from my IP, a different IP will show up, which allowed me to edit if the other one was blocked. I admit I clicked "edit" to two or three articles at the beginning of June, but stopped when I realized I was technically avoiding the block of the other IP, according to Wikipedia policy, because I am the same user (i.e. blocks are based on the user and not the IP address - something which should be more clearly specified when blocks are handed out). Again, my apologies. CdnGael2018 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I understand - you just mean your router was giving you IPs from another range sometimes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where I am it just does that sometimes when editing, and then will re-vert back to the original IP, with a very different numerical sequence. In any case, I apologize for any of this, and any previous improper editing. I will be taking a break for a while, but I hope at the very least the block is reduced, as I feel an indefinite one is unnecessary. CdnGael2018 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the history of this case in more detail, and I do not feel like I can review this unblock request now, so I have reverted my hold on it. To review the request, I would have to be able to review the checkuser evidence, which I obviously can not do as checkusers are not allowed to share it with me. I must, therefore, leave this for someone else Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after further inspection, I agree with User:Berean Hunter and I am convinced that you are a block-evading WP:LTA editor. As such I would decline your current unblock request had I not declined a previous one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever reviews the unblock request, please take note of the stream of personal abuse at User talk:174.119.80.219 (which User:CdnGael2018 linked to, so this is not outing). Those who blocked and/or upheld the blocks there have been subjected to: "the fantasy of their radical left, feminist ideology ", "an administrator with an ideological axe to grind", "abuse by a corrupt administrator", "an administrator taking personal offence because his radical far-left ideology is threatened". Even without the LTA block evasion, is this an editor we want here? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- YOUR NONSENSICAL, UNSCIENTIFIC BIAS IS SHOWING. Just because your ridiculous, disgusting egalitarian ideology is not supported by science or reality, it does not give you the right to censor others who disagree based on facts and the real world, or from differing cultural viewpoints. You are also proving my point on how administrators involved here are corrupted by their ideology in the assessment of my editing behaviour. CdnGael2018 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NONE of what you posted here are legitimate or valid reasons to block ANY editor on Wikipedia. What you have cited here are descriptions of the immoral and corrupt behaviour, and systemic bias, of administrators involved here. They are pointing out the abuse of their edits and their unacceptable behavior because of threats to their increasing censorship, ideologies and agendas. Description of unacceptable behaviour is not a "personal attack". The behaviour of all the administrators here has been reprehensible. Pointing out the presence of a socially destructive and biologically incoherent ideology like feminism or radical egalitarianism is not a violation of policy. This is not over, and I am submitting the case to higher administrators in Wikipedia through other means of communication. Furthermore, not a single administrator has pointed out any violations by me since I created an account, or after the first block was issued (and then expired). There is NO 'long history of abuse', and if you claim such, then there is a burden of proof on YOU to provide evidence of this. CdnGael2018 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: Wikipedia is, supposedly, for "everyone". Just because you have a socially degenerate ideology unsupported by facts and reality, it doesn't mean you can attempt to censor others. CdnGael2018 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CdnGael2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No evidence of supposed "long term abuse" has been provided. This must be provided for the block to have any validity. No personal attacks have been made; descriptions of unacceptable behaviour of some administrators involved is reminiscent to me of radical ideologues being corrupted with authority, but this nevertheless does not meet the criteria of a personal attack. Moreover, no violation whatsoever of Wikipedia policy was deliberately made after the first block was issued in May. I am considering pursuing other courses of action involving the upper echelons of Wikipedia administration if a fair and just assessment of this block, and its expiry date, is not presented, or if my concerns and critiques are not properly addressed. Other legitimate courses of action are also being explored as a possibility.

Decline reason:

If you're insulting people while you're blocked, what's going to happen if we unblock you? Talk page access revoked to prevent further abuse. Sincerely yours, social degenerate Max Semenik (talk) 07:43, 22 September 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.