User talk:GibberFishing

January 2020[edit]

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.

Drmies (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

These are false allegations. There is no technical log that can be held against me. It is clearly stated here by the admin who did a checkuser that the rangeblock has nothing to do with the issue. Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

I was not blocked by the admin who preformed the actual usercheck, but by someone who describes me as a troll. This admin seems to ignore the fact (see link above) that I am sharing a mobile network with millions of others. Or they are aware and just do not care that I am not the same person.

I am not sure if the one who blocked me forgot to unblock me or if they willingly blocked me, despite the evidence. Anyway, if the admin who eventually blocked me actually did a usercheck they would have found out that this account was created prior to these issues. Let me repeat that I have nothing to do with this rangeblock, I am not avoiding any blocks, I am not in any edit war and I have not broken the 3R rule. There was no range block or any other kind of block when I made this edit.

Apparently, for some reason a group of activists does not want improvements to be made to The Manual of Style. There is no edit war, there seems to be no disagreement, it makes no sense at all. This is VERY dangerous behavior, almost religious. I will assume good faith however and hope this has been done in error, so I will not write a mail to ARBCOM at this time. I do think you should not get involved as an admin when you have such strong feelings towards certain articles. But I sure would like to know why the people involved oppose the suggested improvements.

This is taking an unjustifiable amount of my time. How can the encyclopedia be really free if people are being blocked in anger? Should the admin who blocked me read this: please think twice next time. GibberFishing (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC) EDIT: To summarize, before today I have never logged in from a blocked IP. The IP range I used when editing was blocked after my edits. These range blocks have nothing to do with my edits, they are in place because of other users on the mobile 4G network.[reply]

Decline reason:

Indeed, the range block in question hadn't to do with this editor. However, it is still the case that this editor was created to evade a block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:37, 23 January 2020 (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.

I am not an admin, I am not a CU. I did not perform the check user. I simply stated that something seemed up. Drmies is the one who blocked you. He might be able to clarify. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Favonian did the checkuser and concluded that I have nothing to do with that range-block. It is also obvious that my edit has been made prior to the range-block. I am currently on a range that is not blocked and I have no control over my IP address. They assign one to me while I travel.

Not sure why you think something seems up. Could you please explain what was wrong with my edit? Your edits caused others to ignore the issue leaving a big question unanswered. One that has nothing to do with trolling. Drmies can consider any deadname on a talkpage a violation[1], but if there is no guideline or help-page that says it actually is, then it simply is not a violation. Speaking about violations, my current block goes against all guidelines on how to block users. Time fighting would be better spend looking for consensus to (re)write guidelines or help-pages so people are educated.

For the record I did not use a deadname anywhere nor did I encourage anyone to do so. GibberFishing (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was up that your first edit was to a talk page where I responed to an IP asking about MOS, in which due to the IPs other edits, the info that it had to due with a WP:GENDERID problem. Its a bit odd that your account edited only that page to responed to me. Most Users dont edit a MOS talk page as their first edit, when I pointed out my thoughs on AIN, I was assuming good faith, but somthing did seem off. Ask the blocking admin if you want their reasoing or send an email to the given adress, there is nothing more I can tell you that I have not already told you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was made before there was a block. The block is totally unrelated to WP:GENDERID, it has something to do with Iran. Not blaming you, but admins should not block people just because something is odd. GibberFishing (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought twice, and the checkusers who have looked at this saw no reason to accept your unblock request. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, where did they say this? The checkuser I mentioned in the link above has said exactly the opposite. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability. GibberFishing (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the checkuser: The range block and its predecessor have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion[2].

You're not listening or paying attention. Favonian is not a checkuser; I am. The rangeblock placed by Favonian has nothing to do with you; the block that I placed on your account has everything to do with you and the block you were evading--a block that I am not going to disclose here, since we don't link IPs to accounts in public. This account is blocked, essentially, for block evasion, not for one single edit on an MOS talk page. But that's all the time I'm going to spend on this. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame. I was not evading a block because none of the IP addresses I have used were blocked at the time of my edit. I have nothing to do with the reason they got blocked and have not violated any guideline. You are not the only checkuser. Some other checkuser can confirm that I have nothing to do with this and since you are the one who banned me, you cannot be the one to review my appeal. I have given you a change to correct this if it was a mistake, but it seems you did it on purpose. You will eventually be held Wikipedia:Administrators#accountable. I have not deadnamed anyone, if that is even a guideline! Rather than trying to kill the conversation on the MOS, you could help improve it and seek consensus for your deadnaming policy. An admin acting like a militant activist on wikipedia is unacceptable. How can you be neutral in topics like this, while it says on your userpage that you have three genders? I see no logic in what you are doing. GibberFishing (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even take a checkuser to verify that there can be no block evasion. Anyone with common sense can look in the logs and see that the IP range was blocked after I made my edit. But if you are a checkuser then you are also able to tell that the IP address I am using is a dynamic address from my countries biggest mobile provider. I just checked my logs, other than rangeblocks there is no block in place on any of my recent IP address.GibberFishing (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I believe the time has come for you to maybe weigh in here. This blockevading editor is ruining my vibe. "Militant activist"--insert eye roll emoji Drmies (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]