User talk:SashiRolls/Archives/2016/October

September 2016 : inappropriate punitive blocks / gag rules

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked you, in part, for abusively socking with a named account. Equally if not more important, you have been editing extensively without logging in. Those edits have been to articles and Talk pages in which you participated under your named account. It is unclear what you mean by your statement on your userpage that you log in "only when it is necessary to fight for neutrality". However, what is clear is that you edit without logging in to avoid scrutiny, which is prohibited by policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, Hello. I wanted to respond to your claims. First, I have never abusively edited with a named or with an anonymous account. I have made one edit with a named account that I created named Br'er Frog. I will also note that I myself gave the evidence to ArbCom by email (Callanecc responded to a previous mail in response) which permitted my single edit with Br'er Frog to be discovered in the full knowledge that this could happen. That single productive edit is here. There is nothing abusive about this edit whatsoever. So, you may wonder why I chose not to do it under my own pseudonym, SashiRolls, since I was not banned from editing anything except pages related to the page I am not allowed to talk about even on my talk page due to a gag rule. At the time of this ban, I had obviously noticed a certain number of editors who had been following me around preventing me from doing productive editing (the frustration with this behavior led to my ban). Later, this behavior has continued on the page Haiti-United States relation (See further, the stonewalling here, where even a request for comment was (abusively) refused (diff) after two users disrupted productive editing for ideological reasons.

Having read more about the Wiki-legality of multiple accounts since this accusation of abuse, I have learned that -- as I thought at the time -- there is nothing wrong with editing under a second account. What I did not know was that Wikipedia requires for you to declare the connection between the accounts, which of course allows those seeking to prevent edits they are ideologically opposed to to keep an eye on every edit you make. Sadly, this facilitates the work of anyone potentially being paid to prevent critical editing. As such I have decided to "do my time" with honor, and declare that yes Br'er Frog was created in order to edit off the radar of any "Correct the Record" folks who may have decided to watch my account, to prevent me from adding any verifiable and reliably sourced edits which do not fit with their views. This account, the only one I have created, was used to make one change to the Washington Post page (to include reliably sourced verifiable information about their political bias during the Democratic primaries, which has not been challenged (though the unwarranted weasel word "purportedly" was added to the sentence, an act which I did not fight). EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that within hours of posting this one of those following my talk page felt the need to remove reliable sourced info (which I did not add) from the Washington Post page. diff... Should any "correct the record" (sic) types like to correct this inappropriate deletion, Fortune [1], CNN Money [2], and The Guardian [3] can be added to the already reliable source (The Intercept) that was added by the original editor, of course.

I intend, therefore, to do my two weeks time (I have refrained from editing Wikipedia anonymously during this period. Though I have run across some vandalism worth repairing on the Greek and Latin Roots page [4] (gamergate being included in the list of words containing the etymon -erg), I have chosen to respect the sentence imposed on me by Wikipedia rather than help you out.)

Once again, the whistleblower has been punished and those gaming by refusing "requests for comment" and deleting reliably sourced material without doing a simple google search for concurring sources have gotten off scot-free.

Though I definitely do not share the "conspiracy theory" focus found at Wikispooks, I do wholeheartedly concur with their description of Wikipedia here. I have ordered a copy of the book Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, written by a Wikipedia steward, in an attempt to see if he believes there is any hope for positive change. Again, I will "do my time" knowing that I have done no damage to Wikipedia. If there are any anonymous edits that anyone wishes to put forth as being mine and as being destructive in any way, please post diffs to them after the outdent so I can defend myself. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

.

.

Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus

. ( hear the crickets? ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
SashiRolls (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)