WhatNeverHappens

talk page access revoked. If you wish to appeal this block further you may use WP:UTRS or contact WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WhatNeverHappens, you are invited to the Teahouse! Hi WhatNeverHappens! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Proposed edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision#General_comments Statement by WhatNeverHappens I had posted some concerns elsewhere before, but I realize that this is a far more appropriate venue to do so. 1. I have seen some of the opinion that topic bans are not punitive measures at all, and solely peremptory in nature. While they certainly have a preventive component, as it is a measure applied to those who are still considered valuable to the community to protect them from being expelled entirely, it is indisputably meant as an encumbrance and retributive measure as a consequence of rule-breaking disruption; otherwise, the punishment for repeatedly violating those bans with civilized and otherwise non-rule-breaking comments wouldn't be expulsion from Wikipedia. Topic bans are clearly intended to impose surfeit burden. 2. It seems like a default position is a bias to have all sides punished to a similar degree as the desired endpoint (for “keeping the peace” and such, which definitely should be a consideration), rather than tailoring the measures taken to each individual's record of behavior. For example, I highly doubt that a case that dealt with The Devil's Advocate alone would result in anything other than an indefinite site-wide ban. Similarly, it strains credulity to believe an individual case solely investigating whether LoganMac was an SPA would result in the affirmative. However, since these cases are all lumped together in a heated controversy, some conclusions/measures seem to have been inordinately lessened and some exaggerated in order to satisfy a bias in favor of desiring that no side coming out ahead. That is not an impartial, neutral mentality in the least. Perhaps some of this is understandably a result of internal committee compromise and negotiating reciprocity of votes, etc., but it seems excessive in this case. 3. I don't think my concerns over the neutrality of some arbitrators are particularly novel, but I do genuinely worry how it breeds harmful cynicism among Wikipedians, and perhaps to a lesser degree outside onlookers. Although it might not be allowed to be posted it on Wikipedia, there nevertheless exist compilations of evidence that sway onlookers to that effect, that not all judges of this case are genuinely impartial. It would seem that even part of the ArbCom itself shares these concerns of non-neutral double-standards effecting inconsistent outcomes,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&diff=next&oldid=644051306 so the outside perception doesn't seem entirely unjustified. I know you all of you are incredibly overworked and tired, and badgered by misinformed gutter media coverage to boot, so I appreciate the time you have spared to read my long-winded thoughts and comments. Thank you for your consideration. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by {username} Editors may make relevant statements addressing general aspects of the proposed decision (which are not related to proposal). Login Hi. It's pretty clear from your contributions that you appear to be a Wikipedia editor who has created this account to be able to comment anonymously on an arbitration case. Such use of accounts is forbidden by WP:SCRUTINY. If this appearance is incorrect, please explain. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Hello, and thank you for your concerns. I would cite WP:VALIDALT and not delve too deeply into details other than to say I have this account out of concerns for privacy, which is not against the rules. I haven't use this account to sway concensus, etc., nor to make any edits or comments that violate any Wikipedia rules. I am not a current party of any of the case in ArbCom or something like that and neither have I commented previously on the ArbCom pages. All of my comments have been civil and constructive. Thank you for your patience and consideration. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Just to be clear, you can't use alternate accounts WP:VALIDALT to edit in project space. You can use such an account to edit a potentially contentious articles (politics, sexuality, etc) that you don't want to connect to your main account. You appear to have made a common mis-interpretation of what alternative accounts are allowed to do. My advice is intended to prevent this account from being blocked, and will also help set a good example for other editors. If you do not want to comment publicly with your main account, please use email to send your comments. Jehochman Talk 18:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC) January 2015 I realize you were just warned about this, but as you were canvassing multiple persons to try and include your statement in project space and that appears to be the only purpose of this account I went ahead and blocked it. If you have some other plans that are compliant with Wikiepdia policy on the use of multiple accounts be sure to explain them in detail in any unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 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). WhatNeverHappens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This account absolutely wasn't created for the sole purpose of contributing anything to the actual ArbCom case pages, it was actually to convey civil yet controversial observations on some comments made on other talk pages; however I did receive some (evidently in retrospect seemingly awful) advice that my concerns were of good quality and worth contributing to the general commentary on the case pages. I would hope it would be understandable why someone who has beliefs along the lines of “many admins are looking to mete out punishment for everyone on all sides of the conflict no matter how much at fault they actually are” would not want to use a more valuable, less expendable account to publicly express those concerns. I only made requests to edit in the general comments section, none of which were actually approved to contribute anything to the project space, and so this account's only edits have been to userspace. If all it takes for getting this account unblocked is to continue to have all edits confined to userspace, I am more than willing to agree to that. I suppose I learned today that the authoritative interpretation of the rules means that if I want to contribute my comments in a more official manner without altering project space, I would have to do what the admin Jehochman said: “If you do not want to comment publicly with your main account, please use email to send your comments.” Thank you for your patience and consideration. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Decline reason: Please use your main account from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 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. 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). WhatNeverHappens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Apparently this account's use is allowable as long as the edits and involvement is confined to userspace, as per the previous discussion before you came, and I am more that willing to accept that. I thought I covered it in the "I suppose I learned today..." part of my comments, but to clarify I have absolutely no problem with not using the account to canvass for edits. Again, that wasn't even the purpose of this account to begin with. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Decline reason: You say that your intention "was never to unconstructively agitate with this account", but whatever your intention, that is what you have done, and your unblock request has to be assessed against what you have done, not what you say your intention was. The editing from this account is completely unconstructive and a waste of everybody's time, and I see no reason whatever to think that unblocking it would benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 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. 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). WhatNeverHappens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: So now that I have resolved to use this account for a purpose that is undoubtedly allowed by the rules, the reason for the block has suddenly and retroactively been changed to "unconstructive agitation." Regardless of the “moving the goalposts” issue here, I am at a loss to see what those statements are. Surely after finding examples in my edit history to come to that conclusion, an example of an unconstructive comment that I have made as well as how I could have conveyed those same ideas in constructive manner, could easily be provided in order to illustrate this point? If this block is truly all about the comments I made rather than where I was going to have some of them posted at this point, were I an editor like RGloucester and had made the *same exact comments*, would I really be blocked in the same way I am right now? What could I possibly say or agree to that would undo this indefinite block? WhatNeverHappens (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Decline reason: Take your very second comment, here: "... although it cannot be brought up on Wikipedia because it involves offsite conduct and comments, I" - am bringing it up. And of course you just provided a rationale why you cannot provide evidence for your sniping. In that same edit, you clearly stated your intent to evade scrutiny (and evading the on-wiki consequences of your on-wiki edits is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts, of course). Huon (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC) @Huon, I was careful to include "how I could have conveyed those same ideas in constructive manner" because I suspected the issue isn't the phrasing or conveyance of the ideas, but the very ideas themselves. Is there any way you would convey the idea that "although I can't put explicit citations about it because of certain Wikipedia policies, you almost certainly know of these issues and should be able to understand what things look like from the outside" in a manner that you would find constructive? And again I ask, if an editor like RGloucestor or Beeblebrox had made the same comments, would a block of their account really be the measure supported? As per the "privacy" section of WP:VALIDALT, keeping an account to make controversial article edits is perfectly acceptable reason for this account to exist. At this point, is there honestly anything I could possibly say or do about anything that could get this account unblocked? If I had made these comments with a non-alt account in the right places, would I still have been blocked? WhatNeverHappens (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC) 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. You were trying to do an end-run around the policy by canvassing other users to add the statement in via proxy. You will find that Wikipedia adheres more to the spirit of a policy than the letter thereof. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I thought I covered it in the "I suppose I learned today..." part of my comments, but to clarify I have absolutely no problem with not using the account to canvass for edits. Again, that wasn't even the purpose of this account to begin with. That statement is contradicted by your actual edits. Your attempt to get me to do this for you is exactly how I became aware you were doing it to begin with, and I found I wasn't the only one so I blocked you. I would add that in your message to me it was clear that you tried to post your message in project space and failed because there is semi-protection on that page for exactly this reason. I think you will find it difficult to get this account unblocked if you stick with this line of argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC) What do you mean by "That statement is contradicted by your actual edits"? Look at the very first edits I made with this account to see the reason for its creation. I didn't even expect my statement edit to become such a big deal. I would have simply submit my statement as an edit request on the page, and whatever would happen would happen regarding its approval, but that function was evidently broken and left the page in a loop without the ability to submit it. What other procedure is there except to manually request an admin to make the edit? Not because any one else would *agree* with the statement in question, but rather because a site function was broken and there is no other way. I only left a pending request with one other admin, which I made the mistake of doing without checking whether the admin had been recently active. Seeing the person as inactive, I posted the request elsewhere. Again, what else should I have done when the request edit feature wasn't working? I fail to understand why people act like they have caught me doing some clandestine act, when I was openly transparent about the nature of the request from the start. *Of course I now have been informed of the authoritative interpretation of the rules which forbids any attempts to get edits made to project space with an account like this, and I accept that as I have written many times before.* Knowing that I was unaware of that interpretation at the time, what could I have done that was so malicious and rule-breaking that I should never be able to use this account in userspace ever again? WhatNeverHappens (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC) You are dodging the point. Once again, the reason you couldn't make that edit was because the page was protected specifically to stop people from doing exactly what you were trying to do. Nothing was broken, in fact the protection clearly worked as intended in that it stopped you. It doesn't matter whether you were intentionally trying to be sneaky or not, we simply don't allow what you were trying to do. If your only other intent with this account is to agitiate people in userspace, that is also not ok as you are essentially operating a WP:BADHAND account. Come up with a legitimate reason to keep this account or let this go. If you don't have the conviction to say what you want to say with your main account that's just too bad for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC) My intent is was never to unconstructively “agitate” with this account; its original purpose as I both originally said and used it for, was to express civil yet evidently controversial concerns. None of my comments have broken any of the rules regarding being constructive/civil on Wikipedia, so I cannot see how WP:BADHAND applies. *Nevertheless, to remove any confusion regarding its status, I might as well use this account to make article edits where I don't want my identity known, which is certainly permitted as per the "privacy" section of WP:VALIDALT.* Thank you for your time. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Personally I'm not convinced but you are free to file another unblock request with this reasoning if you like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)