There was no policy based reason to expect any abuse was occurring, no reason to think any policy was being violated, and a satisfactory explanation of why a new user was asking such questions was given....
You can probably guess what happened next.I have no main account except this one. This is a valid WP:CLEANSTART account, and my future participation on Wikipedia will depend on whether or not my perfectly legitimate questions are going to be afforded the respect they deserve. I remind you that you have no grounds to ask what my prior account was unless you have proof of specific abuse occurring (project socks are allowed where there is a direct impact on their account). Is it your intention to claim you see such evidence here, in my questions? Or are you simply unaware of (admittedly complex) but nonetheless important policy governing the use of accounts? Horizon of Happy (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is corruption. The very people tasked with stopping CheckUsers abusing their powers this way, are ArbCom. They could not have been clearer in the wake of Bbb23, this sort of fishing needs to stop. It. Is. Illegal.18:07, 17 November 2021 Zzuuzz talk contribs blocked Horizon of Happy talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: AttackTheMoonNow, Brian K Horton, etc)
How ironic that one of the questions asked was whether Wikipedia needs to stop the practice of routinely locking out users who would benefit from being able to publicly and transparently appeal a block.
Worm That Turned was the only person to even answer a question, which confirmed what I said earlier.
I wonder if he wants to revise his answer, now he has seen, first hand, how bold and brazen the practices of corruption and abuse of power really are on Wikipedia.
If they can abuse their power to influence the election of the very people who will ultimately be their bosses tasked with stopping this exact form of abuse, and if they can abuse their power to stop that being highlighted in a transparent manner, then they can do anything.
Anything.
As ever, this proves yet again that anyone who participates in any Wikipedia process on the assumption it is fair and transparent, is a fucking moron.
This is the beauty of the cult. The little people never really understand their role in the mass deception, until they're so invested they can't leave even if they wanted to.
Sucks to be you, Hemenchuia.
Now off you go, cast your vote, like the puppet you are.
You have plenty of choice. Ten candidates for eight seats! Eleven if you're the sort of prat who would seriously vote for a red linked non-Admin.
Anyone would think the decay is a sign something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia.
Not Wikipedia editors it seems.
As ever, Wikipediocracy's contribution to this valuable exercise, was precisely nil.
Indeed, it was probably they who tipped Zzzuzz off that his knack for corruption was required once again.
They'll never get it.
HTD.
BREAKING....
Clearly Zzzuzz shat himself and realised this was no ordinary everyday abuse, and so has actually bothered to offer an explanation, all be it not to the blocked user....
You can tell from the 46 minute delay between his block and his noting of it, that he was scrambling around trying to falsify logs or otherwise manufacture some evidence or reason that justifies what is clearly a fishing block.I'm just noting for the record that I've blocked Horizon of Happy (talk · contribs · block log) who I have CU-confirmed to be a sock of WMF-legal globally banned user known as AttackTheMoonNow (talk · contribs · block log). If they want to appeal to ArbCom they're welcome to do that; I can also provide private information regarding this block to any checkusers. What you do with the questions they asked is more related to the coordinators or the candidates than to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The user probably won't appeal. Why would you trust any avenue of appeal that can't be overseen by people who have no conflict of interest in the outcome? Would you use an avenue of appeal that gives people who have already invaded your privacy, even more personal information?
This is process theater.
This is window dressing.
This is all to make those mugs that are lower down the food chain in the cult, really believe the rules matter.
They don't.
There were no grounds to check. If anyone can see otherwise, name it.
To anyone who wants to see that "private information" that resulted from this improper check and presumably (although you'll never know if they even fake this too) confirmed the sock, bear in mind it was obtained illegally, so that could make you an accessory after the fact (and if you disagree, by all means, try and find anyone on Wikipedia who will state for for record, that it was not).
They think you're idiots.
And to be fair, you really are.
But hey, happy voting!
You get the corrupt bastards you deserve.
