User talk:EthicsInJournalism

Single-Purpose Account

... Perhaps. I normally prefer to edit Wikipedia with my IP but engaging in a certain topic area unfortunately opens me up to doxxing and possible admin abuse.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:I don't think you could have illustrated my point about admin abuse any better if you tried. I had hoped you would be a voice of reason and responsibility when I first read your suggestions on the GG ArbCom page, but you have really disappointed me and shown to have just as poor judgment as some of the other admins working in the area.

Frivolous, nonsense ban used to intimidate an account user who so far has done absolutely nothing questionable in their meager edit history. I haven't "edited anything to the mainspace" since I made this account because I simply haven't found much to edit and am quite justifiably afraid of retribution for doing so. You're doing a great job at scaring off people like me. I hope you understand the damage you're doing to Wikipedia at the end of the day with garbage like this. It certainly doesn't encourage me and others like myself to edit more. Now I'm sure you'll take this criticism with indignation and anger, but I really sincerely want you to try, just for a moment, to reflect on your actions from a different perspective. Bitey actions like these are precisely why Wikipedia has been slowly dying the last several years.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll humour you and take your comments at face value for a moment. You missed the point a little bit: this is an encyclopaedia. We welcome constructive contributions to articles. We don't welcome supposedly new accounts getting waist deep in our internal politics while contributing nothing to the encyclopaedia itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you perhaps stopped to consider that maybe you've cut short my time with this account before I could even find something worth improving with it? You have assumed the worst intent from a new account user here without a shred of real evidence to back it up. No, the absence of something does not immediately mean ill intentions. I have a far lower edit rate than more active users in general, but when I see something to improve that won't spark an immediate debate, I improve it. If it might, I take things to talk pages. This is the appropriate method of improving the wiki as I have always understood it.

If I have not gone about in the correct method to putting a new account to use, then please explain to me what that might have looked like. It's really seeming to me like having an account here is more trouble than it actually is useful.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

EthicsInJournalism (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As for unblocking, I don't expect much sympathy to be perfectly honest, but a simple look at my edit history will demonstrate zero evidence for being "not here to build an encyclopedia", and you'll note that Mitchell has provided no evidence to support his claim of my being a possible mean old sock account (and also declined to mention this in his notification, presuming the edit summary is good enough). If not being as active as another editor now means you're not allowed to be active at all, then that really speaks volumes on just why Wikipedia is in its current situation of declining user numbers with nobody coming in to replace them. I just didn't quite expect myself to become an example. I'll note that wherever this potential block might have been discussed, I most definitely was not made aware of it.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It a abundantly clear from all of your edit history that you are not a new user. You have created a new account solely for the purpose of advancing a point of view. What is worse you seem to have no interest in creating an encyclopedia, rather you just want to advance your point of view.

This block is appropriate. I suggest if you want to make these arguments you do so under you regular account instead of avoiding scrutiny by creating a new account. Chillum 17:31, 20 January 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.

@Chillum:I have no "regular account"; I do my edits via IP. The purpose of this account was never to "avoid scrutiny" but rather to avoid abuse against editing with that IP, or getting myself doxxed in real life. As an admin I think you're able to see the current IP I've been using in conjunction with this account. You can see the edits made with that IP on its own just fine too. I would ask that you make no attempt to reveal it yourself in light of my doxxing concern though. So much for being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It seems my belief in editing without an account over the years were entirely justified.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]