2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64

@Berean Hunter: Literally, as far as I can tell only I have posted on Talk:Suicide as an IP. I made very clear I had a dynamic IP. I can find no indication on Talk:Suicide suggesting anyone believed more than on IP editor posted on Talk:Suicide.

Your block can only get justified as a means to end an edit war. Edit wars unavoidably happen, when discussion fails. Edit wars need to end somehow. You cannot justify the block by claiming I caused harm to Wikipedia's five pillars. I did not.

I appreciate scrutiny. I wish you would give me some, but you only have given me ad hominems and power-harassing threats.

- Rant on Sockpuppetting -

Besides sockpuppetting can only affect a decision making process when editors erroneously consider the quantity of rather than the quality within points made. If sockpuppeting affects a decision then the basis for that decision got made in error whether sockpuppeting occurred or not. To obsess over holding sockpuppeteers accountable, one removes accountability from one's own decision-making process which shouldn't get affected by sockpuppetting, with an unacceptably risk for invalidating multiple personalities as well as disenfranchising vocal contrarians whose statements get judgement biased by their reputation.

@Voice of Clam: If you would kindly transcribe this post instead or as well to the appropriate talk page, I would appreciate that greatly, since my dynamic IP prevents me from posting there now. (If only a block could get appealed on the talk page for my IP range, but alas I can't post their either *sighs*)

P.S. @331dot: since you seem already active this morning, perhaps you could.

2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Berean Hunter: as blocking admin for input into this. I'm too busy IRL to look further into this at present. Incidentally, I agree that the problems with unblock requests for dynamic IP-6 addresses is something that needs to be looked at. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 15:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, just realised you've already pinged Berean Hunter. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 15:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Reply to User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990. "Literally, as far as I can tell only I have posted on Talk:Suicide as an IP" Nope. You have used your account sometimes and sometimes as IPs. For you to get any kind of successful appeal, you will need to name your account and give consent to associate your IPs to that account...none of this is going to make sense to admins unless they understand the full situation. I'm not going to continue to debate with you about that because it is necessary if you are appealing to other non-checkuser admins. They aren't going to unblock you or have anything to base the remainder of this case on if they don't have the full picture. How could they?

I didn't block your account and I will allow you to post using it to WP:AN to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent is given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community will be able to review the situation fairly. They may judge whether there is IP socking among other things.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: So far, I've called you corrupt, but no one has defended your honor or stated they deem you innocent. You've literal threatened me with an indefinite block on my account if I don't drop "this subject" why would I tell you my username if you couldn't easily already tell. When first read, that sounded like a threat to drop this appeal. Please excuse me, if I prefer to hear from the reviewer if they care about that.

Wikipedia should welcome people considering suicide to participate in the suicide article, so I feel afraid this absurdity will scare away anyone who thought they might safeguard their privacy and thereby their freedom of movement while doing so. After all, they get most affected by a biased or factually inaccurate article; they get objectified if the article promotes objectifying language; they get treated as an illness if this article gives undue weight to methods of forcing suicidal people to change themselves; they get denied their cultural rite they would decide to commit in a sober mental state if this article fails to give proper weight to those cultures and their ethics.

I have made serious accusations about your intentions regarding this whole thing. While those intentions may appear noble from a certain perspective, this power harassment doesn't. You didn't decide to "let me" keep pushing "this subject", so you most certainly don't get to "let me" post to WP:AN or "let me" email ArbCom again.

I don't need to tell you this, but this situation has come down to my word against yours. Whether you receive consequences or not, whoever reviews this block will judge your behavior as well as mine.

But now I remember, before I made the RfC I posted once on Talk:Suicide with my account more than a month prior, but only one person replied and I didn't (no dialogue ensued). After I started the RfC and I noticed that old post, I changed the signature on the old post to reflect my IP/IP-range. Again, merit not quantity: regardless of whether someone read that old post thinking that turned out the same person who without ever saying another word more than a month later made an RfC or not, they shouldn't judge an argument by how many people repeat that argument.

@Voice of Clam: @331dot:

2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"...why would I tell you my username if you couldn't easily already tell" - Because that is the only way that you are going to get any progress from an online appeal. I've been asking you mostly because it makes an area less gray. Getting your permission allows you to do it willfully. See #4, first bullet. Then I could say my bit and you could finally deal with the community instead of me. Since you think that I'm corrupt and a "power harasser" then why not give your permission and we will then move onto the next steps and then they can begin to look at both of us as you wish.

I have several options but try to understand this; an admin might review and unblock you but if you edit on Talk:Suicide or the article with either your account or as IPs then I'm going to block you again (IPs plus account). It won't be wheel warring because it will be you resuming IP socking and being disruptive and that will earn you a new, much much longer block. I intend to enforce that you have finished with the Suicide subject. You will probably have much better chances with the community than with me from this point forward. They might let you return but I know that I won't unless you have their consensus.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Consider the argument that 3 consensus-based edits over a 16-day period inconvenienced or hindered anyone, you have a very poor case for demonstrating I disrupted wikipedia. You mention rules which you vaguely allege I violated, but you can't mention what actually got disrupted. I restored an edit which had consensus on the talk page (i.e. no one expressed any opposition in the section in the talk page related to that edit). Only within a strict interpretation might that qualify as an edit war.

You allege disruption, so you MUST specify what goings-on my actions disrupted as well as construct a scenario imagining how the goings-on would have proceeded without my influence. Without that, you have no case.

The legal equivalent to what you have done would go as follows: alleging a video showing me picking up an item in your house proves I stole the item, without seeing the item in video or explaining to anyone what exactly got stolen.

If you block me once and a reviewing admin determines the block inappropriate, blocking me again would violate not only general ethics, but constitute a violation of guidelines severe enough to get desysoped... assuming this behavior won't already qualify.

I've already made my case for why I IP-edited as well as why I do not want my account associated with those edits, but WP:SOCKLEGIT privacy applies anyway.

So long as you keep repeating baseless vague accusations you only stall this out, wasting both our attention and energies. Please stop talking like you control this investigation or what happens because of this. I get that you feel morally opposed to my POV wanting to censor that, but you can't abuse your authority like this then pretend you still call the shots. WP:NOTCENSORED

'I intend to enforce that you have finished with the Suicide subject.' 
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

EVERYONE, please note Berean's own words, which suggest the ACTUAL reason for this block!

@Voice of Clam: @331dot:

2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990 (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

But you are the one that is biased in this topic, right? ...and you are editing there because you are morally offended?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Quote for the day

Though I have written a lot of this policy myself, I do feel that it should not be super-strict. I feel sock puppetry should only be banned when it seriously disrupts articles from looking like they should, and not just for the sake of "getting people in trouble." Hellno2 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in ; ) 2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

---