User talk:BarkingFish

This is all to do with my unblock appeal - click to get the details

OK Guys, time for me to come clean about my problems back in April 2013. For those of you who don't know, I was indefinitely blocked from the site for socking using at least 3 accounts. I was trapped after having a conversation with myself and someone who I said was someone else, but who wasn't, while I was on IRC using 2 clients. Immediately after, I retired from WP, and I claimed to have committed small amounts of vandalism to Wikipedia over the course of around 7 years and generally made myself out to be a mean, vicious little shit who had basically crapped on everything you stood for. It's time for me to tell you what actually happened, in the hope of finally clearing the air. I had been working in Germany after leaving the UK, doing a lot of good work and helping to make a lot of children well. This was the life I wanted. The one I hoped and dreamed of. But it had a downside. Within 6 months of starting, I began to have problems with my capacity to operate and have since been removed from active duty as a medic. My mental health has been a great concern to me over the last year - I am being medicated to help my stability and am now receiving voluntary treatment through my local mental health service. I am also no longer based in Germany. I have left my job and returned to the UK to settle down and be near my friends. My blocking on Wikipedia was absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. I never vandalized a damn thing - I confessed a short while after receiving an email from User:Philippe (WMF) that what I'd actually done was nothing more than Suicide by administrator. I was stressed, breaking down and I'd had enough. I couldn't cope with WP, life, work, health... shit got too much. I took my own sword and gave it to someone else to kill me with. I can't say much more to the community other than, I'm sorry I have caused you so much trouble. I will ask to be unblocked, it's unlikely to ever happen, but I would like to make a clean start and come back to a new place and a new me. With warmest regards to the community, BarkingFish Unblock request 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). BarkingFish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Please see above. It may not be pleasant reading, and it may not be enough for you to help, but it explains everything in as much depth as I wish to discuss in a public setting. Thank you :) BarkingFish (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline - referred to ArbCom / BASC. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (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. @Reaper Eternal:- would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] @PhilKnight: - I just had a look on User:Reaper Eternal's account, he's not been on since January 27th, and is recommending anyone who actually needs something to drop him an email ("Please send all inquiries to my email if you want even a hope of moderately timely responses!"). Is there any chance you could do this, please? As far as I was aware from my block, I don't think I can email anyone right now, and I don't think that would be a wise option for me anyway, even if I could. Thanks. BarkingFish (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] I've sent him an email. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] PhilKnight: If we don't hear back soon, I'd suggest routing this through ANI and letting the community decide. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Coffee: @PhilKnight: - Is there any chance this can be moved on please? I don't think @Reaper Eternal: is likely to reply given the current hiatus in what he appears to be doing. I would be happy for you to go ahead and refer this to the Admin's noticeboard if you feel it would be more productive and faster. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Pings apparently don't work unless you get them right at the time you sign your post, so here are repeats that should help - @Coffee: @PhilKnight: @Reaper Eternal:. Squinge (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'll go ahead and move this to ANI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]  Done [1] — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Response to the referral to BASC and message left at Rschen7754's talk page @EdJohnston: @Rschen7754: @Ched: @Coffee: I am now aware of the message which has been left at Rschen7754's talk page, stating that both Rschen7754 and EdJohnston are not in favour of me being unblocked. As I said in my original statement above, this is as much as I wish to discuss in a public setting - however, I would like to have the opportunity to go deeper into this issue with someone who can make a more informed judgement. As I said, it is unlikely I would get unblocked, but I would like to go for a completely clean start. Almost 18 months 2 years down the line, I'm different to the person you encountered here back then. I am more subdued, my temper is practically nil (the joys of Depakote), I still have my intelligence and I'm much happier - and a hell of a lot less likely to do this again. I am well aware of the issues of competency, since I am being medicated and in mental health treatment, but now I am not working I have more time (and a hell of a lot less stress). I am happy to be mentored and have community restrictions on what I can edit put in place if you think it necessary - but to simply dismiss the idea of unblocking me out of hand, I feel is simply unfair. I am aware that it is possible for me to appeal this ban (as a sock / checkuser ban) directly to BASC. Accordingly, since this seems to be the only option given the statements already made by EdJohnston and Rschen7754, I have elected to proceed with this directly. At least with the Arbcom, I may get the chance to discuss things in a more complete manner. Thank you for your time BarkingFish (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi BarkingFish. As you mention that it may not be best to discuss ALL things in a public area - yes, I did forward a link to your original post along to Arbcom. They acknowledged that they received my email, and hopefully they'll be able to help you along in your efforts. If you don't hear from anyone at either Arbcom or BASC in a few days, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to send along your own email to them. Thank you for the ping, and best of luck in your efforts. — Ched :  ?  15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi BarkingFish, I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I can't say anything about your unblock because I'm not at all familiar with all that stuff, but I do have experience of various kinds of mental health issues amongst family and friends and I just want to wish you the best of health and a continued strong recovery. Appropriate treatment really can make an enormous difference with many conditions, as you obviously know, and I thought a few words from someone who understands might at least help cheer you up a little. Very best wishes, Squinge (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked by BASC

Per our communication by email, the BASC has accepted your appeal under the following restrictions.

"The ban will be suspended for one year from the date of the unblock. During this parole period, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the ban if necessary, but they are not required to do so in the event of placing a block. A reinstated ban may be appealed to the BASC, any other blocks may be appealed in the usual manner to AE. Any administrator reinstating the ban must inform the committee by email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

BarkingFish will be permitted to operate only one account.

The ban will expire after one year of sanction-free editing."

Welcome back. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Courcelles. I hope that now I am back to the land of the living, things will be a little smoother than they have been in the past. My God it feels weird to be editing again... BarkingFish (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back. — Ched :  ?  14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back, BarkingFish! I'm glad to see you get another chance, I hope you have fun getting back into the habit :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Do you still have regular net access at the moment? I have a Commons related project i wanted to disscuss..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, unfortunately, due to my ISP being a bitch queen from hell, I've got public WiFi only. Plusnet can eat it with nails... As soon as I get on from home again, I'll let you know. 86.187.28.119 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarkingFish (talk • contribs) [reply]

Research Enquiry

Many years ago you helped update the section on Epilepsy in a First Aid manual at Wikiboooks.

In relation to that I wondered if you would be willing to assist in digging up some information as to whether a risk profile exist in respect of epileptic seziure and certain hypnosis/induction techniques. I noted a few so called 'self-hypnosis' videos on You-Tube and was wanting to know if there was an associated risk profile which would mean the videos would need to be flagged. It was also my understanding that in a nominally clinical setting there had to be certain safeguards as a regulatory requirement, such safeguards not necessarily being present in respect of user viewed online content.

(I will note here that AIUI the regulatory approach on hypnosis in the UK, is mostly voluntary, other than a 1957(?) act which relates to 'demonstrations of hypnotic phonemena')

The information obtained in answering the above could also be used to update the relevant Wikipedia articles. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During my 1 year probationary period imposed by the BASC, I have voluntarily banned myself from editing and contributing to all medical articles. You may wish to contact James Heilman (Doc James) to assist with your research. Thanks :) What does the Fish say? | Woof! 12:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Mike V • Talk 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my new indef:

@Courcelles: -

Thank you for your alert to my block. I am unaware as to the reason for it, since I have not socked and all my present and past socks have been declared fully and in the open to the BASC. I trust you notified them of the block, @Mike V:. I have emailed them.

I can see nothing added to the SPI to indicate any further investigations, or any sign of what I have done wrong or where, so if you would be kind enough to point me at what I am supposed to have done wrong, I will address it.

I have been nothing but open and honest all the way through my previous appeal, I have even had the decency to notify the BASC of an account I last used more than 4 years ago. Since I'm being accused of something I KNOW I have not done wrong, I deserve to know where it's been investigated and by whom at least.

What does the Fish say? | Woof! 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not place this block, but I do know why it was done. Checkuser has confirmed the link between your account and User:CharlieTheCabbie. Courcelles (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technical evidence has confirmed your account to CharlieTheCabbie. I did notify the arbitration committee shortly after the block. Others have asked me to clarify that this is a reinstatement of the ban due to not adhering to the restriction of one account. Mike V • Talk 18:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please ask where this was investigated, and why I wasn't given the chance to talk to anyone about the allegations before you just dropped on me? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock conditions explicitly limited you to one account with no exceptions. Checkuser has confirmed you have used more than one account. What do you want to talk about? Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that judge and jury have already sat, what I'm about to say will probably mean very little. I categorically deny any connection to CharlieTheCabbie. I don't know them from a hole in the floor, OK? I want to know the following information: Who instigated the request for the CU, where it was discussed, why it was instigated (what caused someone to request it), and where the information on here is recorded. A checkuser can say what they like; I know different. I've just opened up and beared my soul to the whole of Wikipedia and a bunch of people I have never met. I've been fully honest all the way and love being back here. Why would I bugger it up after all that? What does the Fish say? | Woof! 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser evidence has been independently reviewed by at least two very experienced checkusers as showing a confirmed link between the two accounts. Very strong behavioural evidence has also been presented linking the two accounts, and was the reason for running the checkuser. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BarkingFish. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello BarkingFish! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 00:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scruff.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scruff.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cyw-Channel-logo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cyw-Channel-logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bing Bunny - All main characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]