User talk:174.138.219.136

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Block evasion"[edit]

@Oshwah: How exactly am I evading a block? I am not the user or person subject to the block at the talkpage discussion. If you ran a CheckUser, you know that. On what basis do you justify the block? Simply disagreeing with you and your colleagues or criticizing your actions is not WP:DE. It seems like you simply want to remove me from the conversation. That is not very 'Wikipedia community' of you. @Praxidicae: @TonyBallioni: 174.138.219.136 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do I have to do with any of this? I'm not an administrator or a checkuser. Praxidicae (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Well, we were having a conversation. You were telling me how the block process works so well, and one of your colleagues in that conversation blocked me. Before I could post my reply to yours. I thought you might at least want to know that. Especially given your username. I also think it somewhat proves my point... I had thought you were an admin though, given your involvement in the conversation there. If you're not, are you actually able to examine the CU logs? Or are you taking somebody else's word on it too. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My colleagues? I'm an editor, not an administrator or CU. And no, CU logs are not public for obvious reasons. What do you mean "Given your username"? Praxidicae (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Praxidikai.html You have the Latin spelling, & do you mean privacy as the obvious reason? 174.138.219.136 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain what this has to do with anything in this conversation? Praxidicae (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what I meant re: your username. Have the Wikipedia article if you prefer, but it lacks the Latin spelling Praxidike & for obvious reasons, I cannot fix that. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My question was what my username has to do with anything and now you're spouting some nonsense unrelated to anything. Praxidicae (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your username is the (Latin spelling of the) name of the classical goddess of exacting judgement & judicial punishment/vengeance. Also the name of her trio. Given that the subject of our discussions has been justice on Wikipedia, it seemed like this might be relevant to you, or at least germane enough for a witticism. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, administrators who are not CUs cannot review CU logs. This is why oversight of CU blocks are not subject to their review, but to Arbitration Committee. We also typically don't do CUs on request to prove someone isn't socking. Oshwah is not a CheckUser, and I have not performed a check on this IP, and if I had, I couldn't say anything about it because of the privacy policy (we do not connect IPs to accounts). It is Oshwah's block, not mine, and I'll let him explain it. You can appeal his block by following the process at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for the explanation, but it doesn't resolve the problem of unseen evidence and assessing the quality of the CU assessments. Much less quality control on the error-rate of CU decisions. On the other subject, I shan't bother appealing. It would likely either take longer than the 36 hours, or I'll just be told to wait it out. Nobody wants to overturn another admin's decision. It doesn't matter whether the block was justified or not. It's not worth the effort on my part to even try. But this is a pretty good example of what is wrong with the way the community process works on Wikipedia right now. And that is why I don't work on the project. 174.138.219.136 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no CheckUser evidence has been used in making this block, and I want to be very clear on that. It is also not my block.
On the larger question, if you have a philosophical problem with CU blocks, that's a position you're free to take, but current policy is that these blocks cannot be lifted without consulting another CU. Our use of the tool is subject to review directly by the Arbitration Committee.
In the case you were discussing earlier, the technical evidence was very strong and one of the other accounts blocked at the same time eventually admitted the two accounts were related, while denying being Knightrises10. The evidence connecting the accounts there is also very strong, both behaviorally and technically. They are free to appeal to ArbCom or request another CU review my findings, and both methods of appeal have been presented to all accounts both in the system block message and the block notice I gave. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.138.219.136&oldid=872897228"