User talk:FromChrissenden

November 2021

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.

ST47 (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure why I've been CU blocked. I was quite open about the fact I am a retired user who scrambled their password. I'm under no obligation to reveal my past account (it wasn't under sanctions and there's no overlap with the issue that persuaded me to return) and I have good reasons not to, as I had detailed. I'm more than a little annoyed my account was even checked as it happens, suggesting as it does that someone out there automatically assumed without any evidence that I was up to no good, and decided to abuse their privileged position to fish for a technical reason to block me. I wonder if the guilty person even realised I had openly admitted to not being a new user? I'll be taking that up with the OC. FromChrissenden (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence seems entirely satisfactory to me. If you know about OC then you'll know about your further appeal options, so I won't bother explaining them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:48, 13 November 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

If this evidence is technical, someone with experience in busy but diverse networks and long retired but returning accounts (scrambled) needs to look at it. I have no doubt zzuuzz either doesn't know what he is doing, or is part of an effort to find any reason to block me because I was doing something highly unusual for Wikipedia, standing up for procedure and good order. I was not in breach of SOCK, there is no overlap, there were no sanctions on my scrambled account. And there were, of course, no valid grounds to even perform a check. Which will be an issue for someone to answer for, and anyone else who gives that person a free pass for a probably fraudulent justification because they're colleagues. I have yet to hear ST47 even say he had any clue I had already admitted being a returning user, so please don't cover for him if he has dropped you in it. People that clueless do not need to be doing this highly sensitive role. If it looks like incompetence, it probably was, so undo it. If it looks like I was blocked as punishment for retiring and then returning, I probably was, so undo it. FromChrissenden (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ST47 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2021 (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.

ST47 I apologize if this is not the correct place for this, but I think you should unblock FromChrissenden. Their actions were not malicious, and they made clear that this was a new account with no sockpuppetry intentions. ~ HAL333 23:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: What? with no sockpuppetry intentions... Then they should stop evading their many many blocks. TPA revoked. ST47 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Sorry, but I pretty much had to close your discussion per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. It was already slightly dubious to start a discussion regarding the format of an RFC in the middle of it, but considering the {{checkuserblock-account}} and match to a CBAN'd user... well there you go. If you get unblocked or similar, I'll be happy to self-revert though. Best of luck! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @MJL:. The time it's taking to have my unblock request even acknowledged by the blocking admin, much less answered by someone who has seen the supposed proof I am "Brian K Horton" and wants to put their neck on the line to endorse it, is proof enough (to those who know Wikipedia) that the charge is manufactured. It was quite well known back when I was editing Wikipedia that CheckUsers weren't above doing this sort of thing, claiming a block was based on technical evidence when it isn't. I probably spelt a word the same way as that banned user, and they've used that as the excuse, and labelled it as a CU block to stop anyone in your lower ranked position asking awkward questions. No reason to think this wouldn't still be happening these days, since I'm not aware of any changes in how trusted users are monitored since I've been away (I think we have the same means of tracking such things, right?). I knew the Kubrick issue was contentious, but clearly I spooked certain people with my annoying reminders that this isn't exactly a run of the mill RfC. If you don't inform all past commenters it's happening, you (Wikipedia) probably will regret it. If you can't show the majority of arguments made were specific to Kubrick, you (Wikipedia) will probably will regret it. If you don't ensure the Admin who closes it doesn't just phone it in again and generally doesn't do their job, part of which is having an institutional memory of what has caused this issue to be pointlessly reopened in the past, you (Wikipedia) will probably regret it. As I said, it's no skin off my nose, people like Wallyfromdilbert were around when I decided Wikipedia wasn't doing what it says it does in contentious debates, I had actually half expected someone would try to pull something like this. Assume good faith my hiney. I see nothing remotely dubious in addressing procedural factors in an RfC that was already started, for example. It's exactly what a knowledgeable and committed editor should be doing. The lack of such on Wikipedia, is why I retired. What's dubious is that the person who opened it ignored those open questions of procedure, apparently believing that would get him the result he wanted. Clearly he was wrong. Not for nothing, is his limited ability but long presence, one of the biggest reasons this issue has been so badly mishandled for years, and he is in general, such a great reminder that Wikipedia isn't for people who can do the basics, like read. Maybe you disagree. You are still here, after all. Each to their own. FromChrissenden (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] I do agree to some extent that the RFC could have been better handled. I did layout a road map that I felt would've been more appropriate (including a mass-message notice), but I consider it a wash now. There will likely be another RFC in a year, and my hope is that it will be structured in a way to create a lasting consensus. In the meantime, there will likely be several clashes over the contents of the infobox if it gets consensus in this RFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Well, that was what I was trying to avoid with my perfectly sensible posts about a trial period and specific/general arguments etc. But clearly someone here feels threatened by Wikipedia operating how it is supposed to operate and wants it to be a perpetual farce where everyone has their time completely wasted. You will note Zzuuzz said "the evidence", not "the CU data". Totally corrupt. If the Kubrick situation all goes to hell in a year, remember me, and reconsider your own decision to stay here. You're wasting your life. Rank stupidity and general nonsense everywhere. FromChrissenden (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]