Requests for comment/Mistaken identity on English Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. No contributions have been made to this RfC since 2015, aside from a remark about external process. Whether this is resolved or not - this RfC will not play a constructive role in that any longer. For that reason, I'm closing it. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On en:Wikipedia, it is mistakenly assumed that I am the same person as a user who was banned locally years ago (there seems to be an appeal still open but without response). The user is in good standing here on Meta and elsewhere, but fully retired.

The case was closed with the main question unanswered: what CU result? The evidence that supposedly proves this is kept secret on CUwiki. There must be an error, obviously, but I have no access to the data. So I'm at a loss. How can I get myself untangled? Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for English Wikipedia. They have an ArbCom that addresses such issues, and you have availed yourself of that process. I don't think that there is anything further that can be identified by an RFC here at meta. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, but you are missing something obvious: the other user can participate in this Rfc. I've mailed them now, so they are aware of what is happening. The Jolly Bard (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, RfC is not for circumventing blocks, RfC can be used IF there are evidence that suggest an admin abuse, but I don't see any admin abuse here, hence I think this RfC is used for circumventing blocks which is wrongful use of RfC, the evidence suggest from CU wiki and Socks investigations shows no abuse, hence this RfC should be be closed under reason invalid request. Second, this matters should be solved locally by local CU/Admins as this is a local problem and en.wp/English Wikipedia do have Arbcom and functionaries that can talk with blocked user for example by going to this page w:Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment is a process by which broader input can be requested. (...) It may also be useful to gain wider input regarding conflicts or unresolved issues on other Wikimedia projects with the hopes of obtaining resolution.

I.e., this Rfc is the right venue while en:Arbcom is too narrow.

If you have data from CU wiki, please share. The Jolly Bard (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but that data is not publicly available, I'm only seeing/checking if there are an abuse ever happen during the CU by CheckUser which is never happened, hence I doubt this RfC. Also your topic is Mistaken identity on English Wikipedia then why you said en:Arbcom is too narrow? This is perfectly en.wp matters and not global and can be solved locally.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that, but while I wouldn't expect you to see the error (it doesn't need to be abuse, I'm assuming good faith), I expect that I would see it immediately.

This cannot be solved by en:Arbcom because the CU wiki data are from nl:Wikipedia, before I ever edited on en:Wikipedia. The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there has been misuse of Checkuser permissions, you can e-mail en:WP:AUSC (for enwiki) or the Ombudsman. The only way to appeal an enwiki ArbCom ban is through en:WP:BASC, as was confirmed to when your en:WP:UTRS ticket was declined. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general view among critical nl:users is that there has been an improper use of the 'duck test' on nl:Wikipedia. If that is the case, then the CU that followed was indeed a misuse of CU permission. This 'duck test' was also carried out in secret, and questions about that were rudely dismissed. The problem there is that nl:Wikipedia lacks policy on these matters so nl:administrators pretty much act as they please, without any expertise in probability theory.
This is all water under the bridge though because a CU was in fact performed and data were entered and interpreted. From user Akoopal we now know that these data are not straightforward but need to be 'explained'. And that is where the decisive error must have been made. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the information in the CU wiki, the en:Wikipedia CU was probably justified. My complaints with regard to en:Wikipedia are that they (1) didn't notify me of the investigation, (2) still proceeded to block me while the en:CU resulted in no evidence of any wrongdoing, (3) cut all communication before I could say anything, (4) speedily closed the investigation with questions unanswered and, perhaps most importantly, (5) were so eager to block someone who is not a vandal. If they believe that I am an ancient user reincarnated, so what. Why would it matter at all what happened in the distant past? The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Roadcreature says they can't comment here because some idiot will then block them at Meta (their words). :( The Jolly Bard (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create an opening on en.wikipedia. Sincerely, Guido den Broeder (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]