Hosta

Template:Blocked user

Archives

1, 2, This user is a participant in WikiProject Iraq.

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil. Users who wish to insult, harass or battleground may be asked not to edit on my talk page as per wp:userspace guidelines. Due to personal issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can email me or Thank one of my edit to trigger an alert.

I'm also working on a laptop with a broken screen on an obsolete external monitor and slow internet. If it seems like I'm not willing to read things properly it is more likely an issue of inability to do so and not unwillingness.

If you want to know more (out of concern only) I'm willing to talk about it off-wiki. - Technophant (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to disruptive edits, insults to myself or others, or other other general incivility, users QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3 are indefinitely banned from editing on this page except in the designated "free-speech section" if and only if they agree to stop their disruptive behavior. Also, having a Userpage is a must (this means you QuackGuru). - - Technophant (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

While planning my WP:Clean Start attempt I carefully read and re-read the guideline. I recognized that at some time I would want to return to acupuncture after a reliable source for my proposed edits were found. Herein I came to a dilemma, which account should I use or should I do it at all? The guideline seems to give conflicting advice and I was confuzled.

Long story short I should have have asked first. Moving forward I will intend to spirit of the advice and completely avoid all past contentious, difficult, stressful areas. This will involve staying away from alt-med/complimentary medicine article, MEDRS discussion/talk or discussion elsewhere, WP:MED, policy/guideline discussions with the exception of Clean Start which I wish to help improve. For the next 30 days I will stick to the two editing only the two projects listed on my talk page which have been problem-free and resist not be afraid to ask for advice first at appropriate forum if I think there will be an issue. I'm not sure what else I can say to help ensure that block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption I think I've learning quite a bit from being blocked and will never take my editing privileges or my fellow editors for granted again. - Technophant (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per modified topic ban language below: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."—Kww(talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to grant this unblock request. I'd like to hear from Kww first though. Tiptoety ^talk 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the discussion at User talk:Technophant#Rewording of topic ban complete first. I'm concerned that Technophant will believe that he only has to follow his suggested new wording.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a version that is acceptable to me. Adj is indef. away on family emergency. His last edit was on my page. If he were available then this issue would have been resolved by now. Even though I think Adj made a hasty decision I appreciate how he has gone out of his way to try to work with me and seems to want to make his work out right. I respect him for this and from what I've read of he has said about this case I think him and I are going to get along just fine so I don't see how you can justifiy keeping me locked up any longer. I've been civil and willing to work with everybody who's came here. - Technophant (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having followed this a little, I think the whole thing has mainly been a result of confusion and frustration. Technophant's unblock request looks good to me and I can't really see what more he can be expected to say. I would certainly support an unblock now. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Kww for getting the unblock request. The wording was good by me as well. Mentioning BANEX is fine, but unnecessary...it would have applied anyway...but PLEASE don't try to edit the pages under the exceptions listed there! It will only cause trouble, as definitions of vandalism vary from user to user. It would be much much better to just unwatchlist everything, especially since there seem to be a number of people who would like to see you blocked, and who will probably watch for an excuse to report a violation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I explained below, after Dkriegls posted the wp:profinge link, I gave it a quick look and then made the comment that got me blocked. This is actually what happened. I had already unwatched all the topic related pages. That page was never on my watchlist because as I stated I had never visited it. Now, I'm eager to get off my talk page and get back to work. - Technophant (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be a good idea to visit the wording of your topic ban, since there seems to have been confusion on this point. The original wording said "articles and pages" which is more narrow than the community's norms for topic bans. I apologize for the trouble and confusion that has caused you. Here is a wording that more accurately reflects how topic bans are interpreted:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

Thus, an acupuncture related edit to a non-alt-med-related page would still be a violation of the topic ban. Basically, we want you to leave the subject area alone entirely. (User:Dennis Brown said as much in his comment here.) Does that make sense? Once you confirm you understand and agree to a revised wording, and after concerns about your alternate account have been resolved (you need to pick one account and use it exclusively!) I plan on unblocking you, since the edits you made yesterday (with the exception of the one you said you made accidentally to Talk:Acupuncture) were at best borderline violations of the original wording. I will await the comments of you and other interested parties on the revised wording. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your original wording is less ambiguous than you do. If you want to be more precise, I would change "specifically" to "including" in your description above.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adjwilley, I think that's a better edit, however I would like to bring this to the table: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Violations of this ban may result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Alternative medicine can be defined by reliable sources secondary sources such as [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267 National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)] and the Mayo Clinic. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."

This revision is instead of being more restrictive it is instead more informative and will be less discouraging to WP:NEWCOMER while being more clear and less intimidating. I'm gathering that you want to put together a better way of topic banning disruptive users in the future and I'm willing to assist in this effort. I suggest putting together a guideline (ie WP:WHATISCAM) that clearly and unambiguously defines which topics are alternative medicine, which topics are complimentary medicine, and which topics can be construed to be wp:fringe. - Technophant (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that source defines "complementary" medicine as an approach that combined alternative and traditional medicine, it comes under your topic ban. You've also attempted to remove the "broadly construed" language. I think you miss the point. The point is to prevent you from making any edit which relates in any way to alternative medicine, any edit to our policies and guidelines on alternative medicine, or discussing anything, anywhere, that could possibly be construed as related to alternative medicine or our policies and guidelines related to alternative medicine. Your suggested rewording does not accomplish that.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww Isn't there already categories containing articles that considered to be alt-med? Let's drop my wording if you really bother you, but I didn't find anything that was reliably accurate. The problem b4 was I was getting warned for even mentioning the topic ban. If I can't even talk about the topic ban with an admin or another user (in a non pushing sort of way of course) then I that would be intolerable. (Try to imagine the same kind of thing be put upon yourelf). If there is I'll go by that list as an exclude list. I also can live with broadly construed with this important (to me) wording:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

- Technophant (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my haste to get a 'version out the door' I forgot to include the minor wording change "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban can result in blocks, except where specifically excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made." I see that this will prohibit me from doing certain things I used to be able to do without and controversy cuh any semi-automated editing such as Huggle vandalism patrolling or using a Bot to edit lists of categories. - Technophant (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using IPs to evade topic ban. User:Stillwaterising clearly indicates a San Antonio residence, so there doesn't seem to be much doubt about the identity of 71.40.3.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or 75.92.62.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 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.

—Kww(talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Talk about clear abuse of admin tools! "Requests for unblock in the event of a case of mistaken identity, misunderstanding, or other irregularity" Users have a right to talk about policies or practices they don't like. This in NO WAY disrupts Wikipedia, either in the main space, main talk space, Project space, or Project talk space. If you don't like a particular editor's point of view then unwatch their page. My edits had nothing to do with the topic ban. There is no policy against editing while logged out and it isn't is violation of the topic ban.This is retaliatory, and censorship of freedom of protected speech. - Technophant (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but you dug this hole by yourself. I highly recommend that you take at least a week off and then read WP:GAB before attempting another unblock request. Any request that doesn't specifically address the issue of logging out to participate in a thread about MEDRS (thereby evading your topic ban) is going to be declined, and repeated bad unblock requests will eventually result in talk page access being removed entirely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (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.

No, you have been blocked for using IPs to evade your topic ban. Participating in a discussion about how to "overthrow the stranglehold of of MEDRS" is clearly a violation of your topic ban, and doing so as an IP shows that you knew it was a violation while you were doing it.—Kww(talk) 06:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at civility thread above. The diff you cite are exactly the contribs in question. Doc James replied "Yes I agree that he can have another chance. Hopefully things will be productive going forwards." To all of sudden go against his opinion (and your own!) shows ignorance (or malice). I HATE IT when admins log out to add in opinions that they don't want to take responsibility for. I that's the first I've done such a thing. You're accusing me of something (being deceptive/socking) with no proof. End this silliness. - Technophant (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that this pathetic attempt at deception occurred after the discussion you are pointing to.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of De_minimus? It means "The law does not concern itself with trifles." It is actually a guideline on Commons -Commons:De minimis. Where's your sense of humor? - Technophant (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have none when it comes to socking and ban evasion, nor do I think you were making an effort at humor. It's apparent to me that you have no intent of actually abiding by your topic ban.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley Jmh649 Please take look at this. This isn't either fair or justified. I just got back from a long block (and the emergency room) and I was just about to take a look at my watchlist for the first time in days and start patrolling my project pages for the first time now this. - Technophant (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Please take a look and give your thoughts on this. 208.54.86.251 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users have a right to talk about policies or practices they don't like. This in NO WAY disrupts Wikipedia, either in the main space, main talk space, Project space, or Project talk space. If you don't like a particular editor's point of view then unwatch their page. My edits had nothing to do with the topic ban. This is retaliatory, and censorship of freedom of opinion. That it isn't is violation of the talk ban. - Technophant (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of fact, users actually have no rights at all on Wikipedia - there's certainly no "right to talk about policies and practices" that would override a topic ban. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee You say this give no PAG to support to your opinion. Take a look at: Four Rules for Tax-Exempt (California) and my Resignation essay below. Please talk to Gayle Karen Young and ask her opinion. - Technophant (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually think that document vindicates you in some way, then your reading comprehension problems are even more serious than they seemed. The only way forward is to own up to ban evasion by IP editing and to make a commitment to not do this in the future. Continued talk page rambling will only get your talk page access revoked.--Atlan (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. I did not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and childish. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I will refrain from further IP edits. Promise. - Technophant (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponded Unblock request:I do not deny it, I did it. It was stupid, silly, and immature. I knew the policies (or thought I did) and I'm clear on them now. I have refrained from further IP edits. I will respect the topic ban. I will work within the system. I did notify a CheckUser regarding my alternate account. I have made no other IP edits. Please contact a CheckUser to get rid of lingering suspicions. I do not pose a threat or disruption to Wikipedia and can not see any reason for the blocked to continue. - Technophant (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still listening. Not quite believing at this point, but listening. The last time I unblocked you, you said you were going to abide by the terms of your topic ban. You broke that agreement a mere fourteen hours later. Above, you explicitly said that you had not violated your topic ban, and have repeatedly hurled accusations at me, trying to make it appear that I was being dishonest when, in fact, you going back on your word to honor your topic ban. So, tell me: what's changed? What should make me believe that you are being honest at this point?—Kww(talk) 03:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nor have I ever been a dedicated fringe advocate. As a former member of the Vandal Patrol, I have encountered, reverted, and suggested blocks on multiple users and sock-puppets trying to push fringe theories. I do not deny being strongly opinionated, nor do I suggest that have always been the right in all situations. Just recently, I have identified, removed, and flagged a statement that at first glance seemed to be validly sourced but was questionable and posted this thread Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Alleged_Snowden_leaks to warn other editor that this material is questionable and should not be included without further investigation.

I created the page Myofascial meridians after getting consensus to do so on the acupuncture talk page, and almost two years the page stood unchallenged unedited until it gained the notice of the "fringe" crowd which attacked and deleted it. There has been a significant change in climate and a false sense of consensus by means of WP:Tag teaming and any editor who tries in good faith to make an edit that contradicts the skeptic POV. I find all of this disturbing and disgusting and hope that neutrality is once again restored, however I do not personally wish to be participate in this battleground any longer.

I have made every effort to be civil and have until recently tried to ignore the personal attacks and other attacks on my credibility, however some users have gone too far. User:BullRangifer's (block log) repeated attacks on me, concluding this statement "They'd be better off if they stopped editing" in this diff is more just a series of personal attacks, it's a death threat ("Involuntary euthanasia" = "somebody should kill him" = murder] which should result in a swift punitive action.

Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning.

I can come up with a dozen other examples where this user has attacked, threatened, or insulted me, including attacking me for my recent, and temporary insanity brought about by an unfortunate drug interaction. WP needs to be a safe place to share. I have no clue as to why his disruptions are tolerated. I also can not find a precedent or justification as to why I am repeatedly blocked (and even having my talk page privileges being threatened) for the smallest infractions to a (short) topic ban which I voluntarily agreed to. It seem that civility, AGF, and sanity have all been pushed aside in favor of further battleground attacks. I want to call a truce and an end to all this chicanery. I've been honest to a fault regarding my situation, I feel that I deserve to be treated fairly. - Technophant (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, for the sake of argument, I assumed that every accusation about Brangifer is true, I don't see how that explains you intentionally breaking your word, nor how it would give me any assurance that you would not do so again.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other users' dissent aside, when coming down to the heart of the matter it very much seems that this block is retaliatory/punitive in nature and not applied in accordance the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I have demonstrated time again that I'm a constructive, productive editor who is perfect capable of handling and resolving conflicts, maintaining civility, and (except for this recent medication-induced departure from sanity) follows PAG and works well with other. My intentions are sincere, my infractions were petty and intended to be humorous, not malicious nor deceptive. I can only ask for mercy and understanding at this point. Trust is earned, not given, however there's no way I can regain trust and prove my intentions while detained/restricted/blocked from going forth and demonstrating it. Thank you in advance for your attention on this matter. - Technophant (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin @Zad68. On your talk page you referred to this comment of mine and suggest that my block be lifted in mid-August. I assure you and everyone else that the problems that that steriod shot caused (agitation, paranoia, insomnia, aggression, obsessive hyperactive behaviour) are all gone. I'm growing despondent in the lack of response I've gotten from any admins to this renewed request. I can only watch the Middle East explode, and I've gotten word that the civility, neutrality, and highly cooperative environment that pervaded on the Iraq pages I was involved in is falling apart. I took a break last week and if you see Final_Words that comment seems to have been listened to. Even if it's not, my "free speech zone" idea has also seemed to help calm down conflict. In short, while I wasn't well or right in the head in the 2 weeks+ following the drug reaction that, along with rather Bold behaviour of returning to an article where I was a known editor "Acupuncture" with a new username and somehow expecting to have the same respect/cooperation that I had from my previous work was a big boo boo. Canvassing used to mean taking a person to multiple noticeboards, but now I guess it means any issue. Again, lack of impulse control, poor judgement etc. - Technophant (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank for your map. Can you please upload a more clear and update map[1]. Unfortunately, it is difficult to read the names of the cities in the current map.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's available in a 2000px format by clicking on the largest format [here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Mapping_Iraq_~_June_15th_2014.png]. After it loads you may need to click on it to enlarge it. The map maker has promised to update it every to weeks, so if he does it will be at the end of the month. - Technophant (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put in a plea? A reader with no knowledge of the area can't tell where the country boundaries are, which is Syria and which is Iraq. Given that land control is such an issue in this conflict, wouldn't it be a good idea to delineate them? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my map. Find the author on twitter and ask. - Technophant (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was your map; I was just hoping you could perhaps pass the message on. :( I have mentioned this on the ISIS Talk page before but there was no response. I wouldn't know where to begin to find out who created this map and unfortunately don't know how to use Twitter! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1, Seyyed, talk, Freepsbane, Ibn Fulaan, elmasmelih, Gazkthul, Toolen, and AntiqueReader. I pinged all you to come here and take a look at this because of your expressed interest in ISIS/Iraq/Syria maps and/or territory. Right now I'm blocked (see above) and my editing is restricted to my Talk page:

If you follow Thomas van Linge (@arabthomness) on Twitter he tweets about the posts on Pieter Van Ostaeyen's (@p_vanostaeyen) arabism Wordpress blog. Pieter also the site http://syria.herokuapp.com/ where he has a chart of daily deaths in Syria (not a reliable source but interesting none the less). On the maps section of Pieter's blog he has been publishing maps of Syria and Iraq and updating them on a bi-weekly basis.

Here's the latest maps : Mapping Iraq ~ July 15th 2014 and Mapping Syria ~ July 15th 2014. Because these are self-made maps and not explicitly made from a reliable source like our currently used ones, we could put up links on the talk page but would need to discuss further if they are suitable for inclusion in the article. I only got permission to use one Iraq map (older one above) but not unrestricted permission to upload and release all newer maps. I don't think he would mind; there's no specific copyright notice however that's not enough because Commons cares about copyright even when a copyright owner does not. I'm a late-comer to Twitter, however it's easy to use, P123ct1. It is certainly easier than learning to edit Wikipedia - with all the wikimarkup code and the word-salad of innumerable polices and guidelines (WP:PAG) and wp:essays. I've been following the WP:Iraq project pages some. Looks like things are going well. I hope to be back soon! - Technophant (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. I don't know if you're aware, but the clip doesn't work with Internet Explorer 11, though it works perfectly with Firefox. Just thought I'd mention it. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:P123ct1, If you go to look at http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ you should be able to download the ogg codec. If you need more help go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Media_help - Technophant (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I was thinking more of the general reader. But perhaps most people with IE11 already have the right kind of software to hear the clip. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much about it. Ogg is the only format commons allows. - Technophant (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've seen of your recent actions, it appears that you don't understand what edit warring is because you keep doing it. I highly recommend that you read the links in the templates above, since you have had two edit warring reports filed against you in the past couple of days. (Note in particular that 3RR doesn't mean that you don't get 3 reverts for free...I have seen editors blocked for as little as 1 revert.) Anyway, now that you've been around the block twice, the admins at the edit warring noticeboard are probably going to be giving you much less leeway. Other essays I hope you'll read are WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which you often appear to be on the wrong side of. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

got it - Technophant (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why would they ban someone from talking about alternative medicine? Did I understand correctly that this is why you are considering retirement? As a daily user of Wikipedia, I'm asking you to reconsider. The work you have done here is invaluable, please stick around, and don't let the A-holes win!! Peace and love! YS 50.53.148.252 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Adjwilley&Kww- I took a look and can't find a template:TopBan or anything of that sort. Wouldn't it nice to have one? Where can a find the wording of the updated version? - Technophant (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see it. It's in the unblock reason. I'll keep the template up on my talk page. - Technophant (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to give you a heads up, but after looking at your comment page I feel like it might just feel like piling on. So first some encouragement. I got all types of knocked around when I first started editing here years ago. I got angry, frustrated, and almost gave up. We often get motivated to edit pages we care deeply about. And without understanding Wikipedia culture, we get frustrated. But that is not all that this encyclopedia is about. We use it to research so much more. I encourage you to take some time and edit articles that aren't nearly as debated as Acupuncture. It will help you learn the ways of Wikipedia, reduce your frustration, and help you get some positive editing under your belt. Many Wikipedia policies are only learned after you violate them. If you are already frustrated and emotionally involved when an editor points out your violation, it rarely becomes a lesson learned and instead feels more like piling on punishment.

So for instance, a minor little rule that you in know way could have known until you broke it is Wikipedia:Canvassing. This edit you made encouraging LesVegas to join the RFC could have been less biased. It's okay to ask friendly editors to come join a discussion about you, but it is discouraged to try and bias them prior by calling your fellow editors "hardened core of skeptics that just don't want things to change". Now I'm the type who likes to let new editors know about stuff like this, but if you are in a heated debate with some editors, they will interpret this as bad faith and assume you are only here to push your agenda. The best way to learn this stuff is to edit "easy" articles where the information isn't likely to be debated and is easily sourced. Then when you get knowledgeable about policy, you move back to the issue the got you editing in the first place. I hope this serves as a bit of encouragement, even though it came from a friendly skeptic ;) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

response

Some ppl need to let things go. Wikipedia has changed a lot. I got interested in editing again recently when the ISIS crisis broke. I became the number 2 contributor with only one deleted edit and nothing but warm, friendly relations with other editors. However, There's something wrong with sceptic scene. It seems to attract sadists. I do think its best to avoid that whole thing. - Technophant (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that skeptics tend to patrol the most contentions pages. Trust me though, I have found uncompromising editors creating frustration at the most obscure pages, over the most asinine details. After a while I ask myself if it was even worth it to engage said person. I am glad you have found a positive editing experience. Feel free to ask me any policy questions that you find yourself getting frustrated with. Always happy to help. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dkriegls, here's my theory. Promoters of unorthodox ideologies (theories) of course like, believe and strongly feel their theories. Likewise promoters of skeptic ideologies (theories) like, believe and strongly feel their theories. The difference between the two is that the former have very specific beliefs while the latter have much more generalized (broader) beliefs. The premise of WP's consensus philosophy requires adequate representation of the whole spectrum of beliefs. It works, usually. However in the case of alt vs. skepticism, the skeptics will almost always pervade. Skeptic debunkers get a dopamine bump (high) from being right (debunking) any "fringe" theory, however owners of minority orthodox theories only get a get a bump from supporting their specific theories. Hence the problem in alt vs. skepticism debates. - Technophant (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are spot on about the emotional commitment to the argument (on both sides). But I think a lot of frustration stems not because "the skeptics will almost always pervade" but because WP:PROFRINGE puts the burden of proof on the fringe theory, thus allowing less civil skeptics to dismiss it out of hand. Skeptics also jump from debate to debate (fine tuning their knowledge of Wikipedia debates) while fringe theorists often have one or two theories they try to promote, thus limiting themselves to the finer points of Wikipedia policy debates. That's why I always encourage the frustrated to spend more time working on other Wikipedia articles. It took me a long time to learn how this whole community works, and I am still learning new tricks of the trade all the time. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dkriegls FYI, after you posted this I clicked on the profinge link, gave it a quick look and then made the comment that got me blocked. For all those who think I was, well whatever, this is actually what happened. (sigh) - Technophant (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant, regarding these edits - you made those edits to an archived noticeboard discussion. Do not modify the contents of an archive page. It says right at the top, Do not edit the contents of this page.

Regarding your recent edits here and here, you make reference to a subject area in your topic ban. These edits are ill-advised, you really must not be making any kind of reference to that subject area at all. I am pinging Adjwilley here to review those edits and possibly comment or take action. It is normal for someone newly under a sanction to test the limits of that sanction, but you need to know that this testing period is now over, and you really must stay away from the subject area completely. Any kind of reference to it, no matter if oblique or sly (referring to the last two diffs), can very easily result in further sanctions. Zad68 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice - This is a "free speech zone". Banned editors may write in this section *only* and must do so within the collapse box. - Technophant (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68, in connection with this comment of yours, I'd like to make sure you understand certain technicalities of the block and topic ban. The topic ban came first and applies to alternative medicine topics "broadly construed". It is a community ban and cannot be reversed by an admin (acting on their own). The indefinite block was imposed by an admin, and can be reversed by an admin.

I strongly sympathize with your "general feeling". The very existence of this section for "banned" editors, and even hatted, speaks volumes about the lack of ability of this editor to ever collaborate with editors who cross them and hold opposing POV. It means nothing to be able to agree with one's friends and edit peacefully on one subject. That's a given. One's strength of character is tested and evaluated by one's ability to deal civilly with those whom one finds unpleasant, and STILL AGF, as is required here.

This whole thing started as a violation of a clean start which blew up and got spammed and canvassed across numerous articles, talk pages and noticeboards. It was so big that the community finally put their foot down in the form of a topic ban. Good editing in one area does not erase that. The topic ban is well deserved and still stands. The indef block came as a conclusion to a build up of really bad karma exhibited on this page, with huge failures to AGF, constant self-defense and denials, deletions of legitimate criticisms, "banning" of civil editors who did nothing wrong, "demands"(!!) to be unblocked, and then block evasion and lies about it, with admission only when forced. (Even the "Final Words" below this are pretty uncollaborative and demanding, a standing testimony to negative potential, "a net-negative".) None of that history was a good thing, but I'll let others decide what to do about the indef block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at least letting you still write to me here and I read it. I'm afraid that I will never trust you again Brangifer. You've launched a very uncivil campaign of personal attacks, threats (including one of involuntary euthanasia), and have canvassed multiple talk pages in order to get me permanently blocked. I feel that you are a wolf in rangifer's clothing and you have a huge conflict of interest being an alleged "psychical therapist" then attacking competing professions like acupuncturists and chiropractors. I wouldn't at be surprised to find out that your are a paid editor supported by a trade association or insurance company paid to attack the public image and credibility of alternative and complimentary medicine. You are a huge time sink and this reply may or MAY NOT be the last time I spend any attention on you. If you followed the advice below about unwatching of my pages and having no contact with me. So yes, this is a cease and desist warning. Read it, follow it and stay away. - Technophant (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are a serious matter, and we don't take them lightly. Since you've been warned about this before, I'm surprised you'd do it again. Your reaction to my very civil explanation of events for Zad68 is a very clear demonstration that what I wrote was very mildly put. You are worse than what I wrote. Your lack of self-control and lack of an ability to view yourself as others see you is evident. You demonstrate an extreme lack of ability to distinguish the difference between civil comments and personal attacks. You constantly call critical comments "personal attacks", and that means you can't function with editors whom you don't like or who criticize you.

You wrongly accuse me of being a "psychical therapist" (whatever that is!), of being a paid attack dog, and of issuing a death threat. Wrong on all counts. The gross error of that charge has been explained to you by more than one person, yet you dare to repeat it. Again, this shows your lack of judgment.

You are not in any position to grossly violate the principles governing talk pages by banning me or any other editor who makes civil comments. Your "bannings" really should be a blockable offense, especially in light of how you misuse them. Your talk page access should be removed completely. You are in no position to threaten other editors like MrBill3 when they point out your errors. He is right and you are way out of line when you threaten and ban civil editors. You should be civilly responding and regaining our trust. Instead you repeatedly reconfirm our worst suspicions / impressions, no, actual knowledge of how you operate here. It's evident for anyone to see.

There are erroneous statements made on this page which really need response and correction, yet your "ban" prevents correction of those errors, as would usually happen on any normal editor's talk page, so I'll respond to one of them here:

• A1candidate's comment includes some diffs to my comments elsewhere, but (s)he makes the mistake often made by fringe editors who make such accusations; such diffs often contain strong evidence against the accuser themselves or the one to whom the original comments were directed. The boomerang effect then works strongly for making such misleading accusations in defense of a disruptive blocked editor. Those diffs, and their edit summaries, show they were very correct comments to make, and still very civil, albeit unpleasant. The obvious reasons admins "did not take action against the other parties to the dispute" were that my comments were extremely accurate. Technophant's actions, before and after, have proven them to still be accurate. A1candidate, thanks for providing those diffs. They are good evidence that I've been right all along. You make a good witness for the prosecution. You really should duck your head and stay quiet when tempted to defend other fringe editors, because your fringiness and meatpuppetiness is showing.

Now, because this defense is written in the wrong place, instead of directly after A1candidate's misleading comment below, their comment gets read by others and simply believed. That's SO wrong! Technophant's banning practice must be stopped and/or their talk page access revoked. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. When I wrote to Brangifer to cease or desist and leave me alone I did imply a treat, but not a legal threat of off-wiki court action. I was a treat to take him to the noticeboard for his persistent battleground/canvassing/threatening (including a death treat) and not respecting consensus and admins advice to drop this whole thing, stop watching other's pages, and stop this horrible time sink. I am SO READY to let this all go, however if Brangifer is not then I will have to take him to the appropriate noticeboard or Arb. This goes for you too MrBill3. You have no business being here except to stir the pot and make things worse for me. Both of you need re-read my User_talk:Technophant#Final_Words enough times to realize that you really need to go. So, run along now. Find a new hobby or whatever, just don't come back here again. - Technophant (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note carefully your comment linked to the article Cease and desist the first sentence of which ends, "else face legal action." I strongly suggest you withdraw the legal threat. If you fail to do so I will file an ANI report. Your continued lack of civility is also noted. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a stretch. Technophant didn't send a cease and desist letter (which is what that article is about), and honestly, I can understand why he's asking certain people to please leave him alone at this point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I unlinked the words "cease and desist" to an article which I neither wrote nor read. It was only there so the user could understand the meaning of the phrase. Again, I never made nor implied an off-wiki legal action, I'm just putting in strong words my desire for these users to quit their attacks and have a hope that our paths never cross again. If they want to keep ignoring these warnings I may have to take on-wiki corrective actions. - Technophant (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final Words

While I've requested that several editor with who have violated my talk page guidelines published at the top of the page (with justifications) refrain from making comments here, I'm well within my rights to maintain my user page as I see fit. I feel that I've been very generous by allowing this "free speech zone" as attempt to allow discussion to continue without disrespectful editors spreading their dross anywhere and everywhere, thereby causing disruption to some important discussions.

None of the editors that I've sanctioned (all non-admins) are "critical" to either my block/ban discussion nor discussions regarding WP:Iraq, WP:Aviation, or WP:Islam. BullRangifer's detailed and time intensive analysis of every legitimate refraction/cleanup I've ever made is frankly disturbing. Please, please, please take a look at BoboMeowCat's comment and Adjwilley's concurrence to this comment: "There seems to be a lot of bad feelings here on all sides and I think at this point it might be helpful if all involved removed each other's talk pages from their watchlists as a proactive step toward ending all this ongoing drama."

I strongly urge all editor sanctioned above to follow this advice and unwatch my userpage and pages that I may edit that are out their scope of their typical interests. If there continues to be problems with editors not respecting basic principles of civility and good faith it's quite possible this page may be fully protected to help stop the madness. Sincerely, Technophant (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the top contributors to the controversial militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Since I started editing the page in on June 15th I've had nothing but positive experiences with the other contributors to the article with zero edit wars or other conflicts.

I've also been diligent in trying to prevent potentially unreliable information such as fake Snowden leaks from getting included in the discussion as seen here: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Alleged Snowden leaks - Technophant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I hope this bit of encouragement makes you feel less unnoticed for your recent constructive edits --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be a good idea to visit the wording of your topic ban, since there seems to have been confusion on this point. The original wording said "articles and pages" which is more narrow than the community's norms for topic bans. I apologize for the trouble and confusion that has caused you. Here is a wording that more accurately reflects how topic bans are interpreted:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

Thus, an acupuncture related edit to a non-alt-med-related page would still be a violation of the topic ban. Basically, we want you to leave the subject area alone entirely. (User:Dennis Brown said as much in his comment here.) Does that make sense? Once you confirm you understand and agree to a revised wording, and after concerns about your alternate account have been resolved (you need to pick one account and use it exclusively!) I plan on unblocking you, since the edits you made yesterday (with the exception of the one you said you made accidentally to Talk:Acupuncture) were at best borderline violations of the original wording. I will await the comments of you and other interested parties on the revised wording. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your original wording is less ambiguous than you do. If you want to be more precise, I would change "specifically" to "including" in your description above.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adjwilley, I think that's a better edit, however I would like to bring this to the table: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Violations of this ban may result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Alternative medicine can be defined by reliable sources secondary sources such as [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267 National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)] and the Mayo Clinic. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."

This revision is instead of being more restrictive it is instead more informative and will be less discouraging to WP:NEWCOMER while being more clear and less intimidating. I'm gathering that you want to put together a better way of topic banning disruptive users in the future and I'm willing to assist in this effort. I suggest putting together a guideline (ie WP:WHATISCAM) that clearly and unambiguously defines which topics are alternative medicine, which topics are complimentary medicine, and which topics can be construed to be wp:fringe. - Technophant (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that source defines "complementary" medicine as an approach that combined alternative and traditional medicine, it comes under your topic ban. You've also attempted to remove the "broadly construed" language. I think you miss the point. The point is to prevent you from making any edit which relates in any way to alternative medicine, any edit to our policies and guidelines on alternative medicine, or discussing anything, anywhere, that could possibly be construed as related to alternative medicine or our policies and guidelines related to alternative medicine. Your suggested rewording does not accomplish that.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww Isn't there already categories containing articles that considered to be alt-med? Let's drop my wording if you really bother you, but I didn't find anything that was reliably accurate. The problem b4 was I was getting warned for even mentioning the topic ban. If I can't even talk about the topic ban with an admin or another user (in a non pushing sort of way of course) then I that would be intolerable. (Try to imagine the same kind of thing be put upon yourelf). If there is I'll go by that list as an exclude list. I also can live with broadly construed with this important (to me) wording:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

- Technophant (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my haste to get a 'version out the door' I forgot to include the minor wording change "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban can result in blocks, except where specifically excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made." I see that this will prohibit me from doing certain things I used to be able to do without and controversy cuh any semi-automated editing such as Huggle vandalism patrolling or using a Bot to edit lists of categories. - Technophant (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now wish I had responded to your request for help with the Acupuncture article. It was not that I did not want to help, but rather that I know next to nothing about the subject and am heavily involved with ISIS and al-Baghdadi stuff (those b footnotes, which are nearly all incomplete, and some of them plain wrong), so did not respond. I was going to say then that I sympathize with you over the treatment you are getting on that subject, because it is my strong impression that Wikipedia is obstructive and difficult about so called "fringe" medicine and almost anything related to it. I wrote a long post some time back letting rip about this on Wikipedia but now cannot find it. It is not from personal experience, but what I sense others who try to edit on these subjects experience. Please do not give up. Your help and work on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi articles has been immense and valuable, to everyone, and you are vigilant, as I try to be as well. It is alarming how things can slip in unnoticed, which is why I always check the latest on the View History pages to see all is well (as far I can tell from my limited knowledge). I would not be surprised if your trouble stems from the subject rather than your editing. Now to what I really came here for:-

@Technophant You asked me some time ago about how notification of messages works now. This is the answer I have just had on the Village Pump Help desk to a query I had which I thought might help:-

If a message is left on a general Talk page or Help desk for a particular user in this form, @Username:, is the user automatically alerted that they have a message? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: Yes, provided that (a) the link to the user's home page (which might be in the form of a {{replyto}}) gets added in the same post that your signature was added and (b) at Preferences → Notifications they have "Mention" enabled (for either Web or Email); if it's enabled for web only, they also need to have "⧼echo-pref-new-message-indicator⧽" (on the same page) enabled. More at WP:ECHO. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One excellent way of getting a user's attention who may otherwise be swamped with mentions is to Thank them for one of their contribs. It builds good will and recognition and will stand out among the din.

I hope this ban is not universal. You would be sorely missed on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi pages. If there is anything I can do to help support you, please let me know. Keep your chin up! --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I will try to find my post on alternative medicine. I think Wikipedia are heavily biased against it, whatever they may say, which definitely flouts NPOV. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please do.Technophant (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, however I do have a knack for legal issues and did quite a bit of work on wp:law re constitutional and case law. If this were a case in a court of law it should be thrown out without prejudice, ie no finding of fault being issued on the plaintiff. If there's a miscarriage in justice, an appeal can be made an easily won, with possible findings of misconduct being filed to the witnesses who provided false depositions.

The former result is obviously preferential. If the finding is a dismissal with prejudice there will be a mark in the public record that the block was warranted the patronizing and often inaccurate warnings will stain on my reputation forever. - Technophant (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone would ever get anything better than palm tree justice from Wikipedia, with the all-powerful judges being the administrators. : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an important and not readily transparent policy on how to bring up issues regarding reporting admins. I really do hope this block is resolved swiftly and fairly. It seems surreal... (:-X) - Technophant (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Something or someone has altered what I said in my last post. I did not put "Nil desperandum" (in red), I put "palm tree justice"! I checked my post before sending it, too. I cannot understand it. I hope the block ends soon as well. Good luck. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:P123ct1 That was my bad, copy-paste error. Fixed. BTW: simply putting putting in somebody's wikilinked user name of the template username will generate a notice. Adding the @ means that you want to address the comment specifically to that user. These new to me additions to the WP framework really do help make sure conversations are followed up upon. - Technophant (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not explicitly a block due to socking, the innuendo is obvious. user:Adjwilley wrote here that "I didn't see a voluntary coming clean in this edit. Note that the relationship between Technophant and Stillwaterising was removed, but both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject. The edit he was blocked over was neither of the ones you mention, but this one. Note that the block is indefinite, not infinite. If he makes a reasonable unblock request and you think he will actually comply with his topic ban, I'm not going to whine if you grant it.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

While this is technically true, the total time that "both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject was a mere 105 minutes. During that time I was editing my userpages and planning my homecoming and made no edits in main space. You can see for yourself in the history. No ill intent can be deferred from this. I was planning on deactivating this legally created and maintained alternate sum wp:clean start account and reactivating my original account. After my sudden unexpected WP:OUTING here I immediately acknowledged the topic ban and prematurely had to disclose myself. The reason for resigning from Wikipedia as Stillwaterising and deciding to convert my disused alternate account has to do with my involvement in bringing the Wikiporn scandal to the public's attention. This resulted in and a very serious legal threat accompanied by personal attack and attempted outing by a Wikimedia staff member.

(more) Instead of going to the board with this or the media I internalized it and told no-one. The fear, hatred, and resentment quickly got to me and I resigned in disgust. In order to leave the past behind, I was hoping for a fresh start by building my edits and reputation with the hopes of being an administrator one day. That's all up in the air right now. I'm no longer afraid to speak out, and I'm no longer trying to hide my true identity. I'm not trying to make this project into my personal battleground. I just want to get the same right and privileges and protections as other project members. Whether paid or unpaid, admin or newcomer I view all legitimate users as equals in a global virtual workshop. Being an admin does not excuse from behavior that would not be accceptable inside the WM Foundation's office building. Technophant (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, please check the logs for Stillwatering there was a topic ban discussion regarding the legality of an image and an edit that was construed as a legal threat. Now look if I have any edits regarding com:sex, alt-sex, wp:porn, whatever on this account. If you can find one I would likely years ago. There's proof positive that I can get the message of what and where I'm not being constructive and can change that energy into something positive like being top contributor and well liked in ISIS (militant group). This all shouldn't take long to verifify. Also, I challenge my critics to find an edit where I am knowingly lying to a user. If this all checks out then I really shouldn't have been topic banned blocked. - Technophant (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no history of edit warring, user reporting, or any known disputes with any editor withing the topic of the middle-east and Islam and these are supposedly controversial topics. Take a look at ISIS. Any history of edit wars or battleground? Isn't that kinda surprising being that it gets 50k views/day???? A sizable part of that is from my experience and guidance on the talk pages. - Technophant (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the declined unblock that you removed - a declined unblock is one of the few things you are not allowed to remove while blocked. (So to answer the question in your edit summary "do i resuse the template or start a new one?", yes, a new one.) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the unblock template I was focused on the unblock reason and failed to notice non-removal instructions. If you take look at the template and introduction to my template you'll see that I'm having multiple issues that interferred with vision and judgement. IF I'm ever blocked again I'll make sure not to do that again. - Technophant (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making this sort of comment [13] as an IP is not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that had come after this latest cycle instead of before, the block would quickly be reinstated. It's sad to see that someone that was so loudly proclaiming that he was not socking was, in fact, socking. If you do that again, Technophant, I doubt that anyone would ever lift the resulting block.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that he can have another chance. Hopefully things will be productive going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 If you look at this diff you'll see I gave you a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and sincere apology. You borderline snarky reply and the above comment shows to me that you aren't ready to forgive and forget. I suggest you move on, I plan to. - Technophant (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE - I have been communicating with Jmh649 via email and are now on friendly terms. I'm pleased to announce that there's no longer any ill-will between us. - Technophant (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia of old, as immortalized in the 5 pillars created by Jimmy Wales and a few other free spirits, has been crushed, gone, replaced by a battle ground where only the well-connected few succeed. Civility is gone. Ignore all rules (except the five pillars) has been replaced by a confusing word-salad of cryptic acronyms (instruction creep). Neutral point of view has been replaced by a sickening spooge-covered mess of fringe-bashing articles that pass for "encyclopedic". And the most revolutionary and egalitarian part, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, only applies to those who use IP edits and aren't afraid of being reverted mercilessly because they don't conform to the wp:tag team's point of view. ENOUGH!!!

In addition, all editor and especially admins should conform to Wikimedia's Foundation polices including Friendly Space Policy and Whistleblower policy. Everybody who volunteers for Wikimedia are volunteer employees. Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following and failure to treat other people with respect should be ground for immediate termination. Reporting procedures should be clearly posted and easy to complete. Contact Chief Talent and Culture Officer Gayle Karen Young for more information. I used to really really enjoy editing WP. Maybe someday the Board will once again take the reigns and get this project back on track. - Technophant (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	This is a token of appreciation for your work on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, where your many contributions have been unfailingly helpful and your vigilance and attention to detail much appreciated. P123ct1 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how much this means to me. I feel like I want to cry. - Technophant (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 What happened to my farewell message on the ISIS talk page? Was it removed? - Technophant (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask that question, when the diff you provide shows you obviously know the answer? Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not melodramatic retirement messages.--Atlan (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never even saw it on the page, but Atlan removed it on 24 July at 2.54 UTC saying, "This page is not for goodbye messages". Please reconsider resigning - after all, the block decision has not been settled yet, has it? It would be a pity to let one bad experience on one Wikipedia page stop you editing altogether. As you said, you had such a good experience on our pages, so why not on possibly countless others in the future? I can understand exactly why you feel as you do (...) but as I said before I really think the trouble stems from the subject. I still can't find my long post, but someone on the Help Desk has told me how I might track it down. Does this ban mean you can't even go to the ISIS/al-Baghdadi pages? (Gone midnight here in the UK.) --P123ct1 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:P123ct1 My topic ban only pertains to the area of alternative medicine, specifically acupuncture, so areas pertaining to ISIS, Iraq, and middle-eastern studies are perfectly ok as far as I know. Atlan Your reason for removal of my talk page entry mentioned re my farewell notice is not sustained by PAG. There is no such thing as wp:nofarewells but there are WP:PRINCIPLES. I recommend you restore the edit and the help desk. I am the most experienced contributor on the ISIS page and part of most every discussion regarding sources, PAG etc. Notifying the ISIS team about my block/ban/resignation is appropriate and relevant to the growth of the article. Congratulating fellow contributors is appropriate as well. Please don't try to "make me disappear". No good can come from this. - Technophant (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an appropriate place for a farewell message, plain and simple. There is no such thing as an "ISIS team" that needs to know what you are doing at all times. You are not the "most experienced contributor" on the ISIS page, at least not by any way I can measure that (not that it matters). The way you're putting it, it would seem the ISIS page should fall into chaos once the great Technophant stops editing there. While I certainly think you are a positive force on the ISIS pages, you are greatly exaggerating your influence there. And why would you want a farewell message anyway? It seems to me that once unblocked, you would gladly go back to editing there.--Atlan (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:Nofarewells but there is WP:DFTD which may be a reason some people don't look kindly on publicized farewell messages. I don't like that essay myself, and my favorite essay on the subject isn't on Wikipedia at all: meatball:GoodBye. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:P123ct1, I know this whole block/ban thing seems confusing. It is to me as well. Editors have just as much right as admins to make add your opinions regarding policies, blocks, bans, and noticeboard discussions. You can also try to bring this issue to the awareness of other editors or the community at large as long as you follow the wp:canvassing guidelines. I'm very proud of you P, you've shown a lot of heart and determination. My ability to edit is confined to my talk page for as long as the block lasts, however I'm free to edit any other Wikimedia project including Commons. Keep up the good work, I hope to be back soon. - Technophant (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am horrified at Atlan's unkind words. I some time ago came to the conclusion (from looking at other user pages and talk pages) that Wikipedia can be a snakepit. It almost put me off editing once. I cannot imagine what it must be like being at the receiving end of such unpleasantness. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said he is a positive force on the ISIS page, but that he is exaggerating this fact. First as leverage for an unblock, then as a reason for special treatment on the article talk page. Oh my how unkind. I'm quite the snake.--Atlan (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe>゜Ͻ～～～～～～ - Technophant (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlan I was referring to your hostile tone. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am predisposed to sarcasm and I am also not one to mince words, but don't mistake that for hostility please.--Atlan (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mincing words is fine - I agree with that - though sarcasm can be hurtful! But I take your point - P123ct1 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:P123ct1 Due to politics that are beyond my understanding and control I will not be coming back to edit ISIS or any other pages anytime in the near future. My farewell was NOT insincere, was NOT directing anger at other editors and I would like you to restore the banned user Atlan's bad faith removal. If you don't feel comfortable with that please restate my farewell and thanks in your own words. Thx. - - Technophant (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Technophant I am sorry to hear the trouble continues; I was hoping you would be back soon. I have written a message on the ISIS Talk page, saying more or less what you said - are you able to read it? I am a little nervous about getting you into even deeper water here. I have been having trouble of my own, arising from a disagreement I had with an editor over a very contentious edit in ISIS; you can read about it on the Talk page. It had massive fall-out for the editor concerned! Look forward to hearing from you. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1 mmmkay, lots to consider here. Yes I can read any page I wish, however I can only edit this one. First your edit: "Technophant has been away from this page for some time now and perhaps other editors have noticed his absence. He has decided to reitre from editing on Wikipedia owing to a topic ban he has had from editing on alternative medicine. He passes on his congratulations to the editors who have been working on the ISIS article for their efforts in improving it and says that working on this page with others been one of the best experiences he has had editing in Wikipedia. I shall miss him on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, as he was a tireless contributor, always helpful to others and found many ways to improve the article." Actually I'm only considering retiring and I've been informed that I could get unblocked in a few weeks. If that's the case, and the weird gawkers and morbid onlookers take the sage advice of User:BoboMeowCat and User:Dennis Brown for "all involved removed each other's talk pages from their watchlists as a proactive step toward ending all this ongoing drama." then I do want to come back. and btw, I only announced that I was considering retirement, it's obvious that I enjoy contributing and having positive experiences with editors like you on Iraq related pages have somewhat restored my faith that WP CAN be what it it's founders intended it to be (and so much more).

Next take a look at the the list of top contributors on ISIS. There's a problem here - nobody is an admin. On the talk page count, admin User:Dougweller (at #7), seems to have stepped into the role of moderator. It would be best if another experienced editor with a decent reputation, sizable number of contribs, has a good grasp on wp:PAG, etc. is nominated and confirmed to be an admin. It is always best to have an admin(s) on board to block/ban, correct errant contributors and help keep the peace and stability of the article. Things had been flowing along quite well, however due to the number of page views, the subject matter, importance and strong emotions tied to Iraq's history/future problems can/will arise. I think it's acceptable to exceed 1 revert if the editor you are reverting is going against a consensus decision made on the talk page or fails to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle system and is disruptive. You can always use the appropriate notice board, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, WP:AN/3RR WP:COIBOARD, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard are all good ones for this article. - Technophant (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Please email me so we can continue our conversation. There's been discussion of putting full page protection on my talk page, something I would support as long as I can continue to work with a small number of productive editors who come here to discuss issues regarding the WikiProjects I'm involved in. - Technophant (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am restricted to only editing my talk page (and even this privilege has been threatened to be removed here and [ here]), I am forced to attempt to start an arbitration request on my own talk page. This battleground regarding alleged "fringe pushing" on my part has resulted in palm tree justice Topic Ban and multiple blocks by supposedly "uninvolved" admins persuaded by multiple "neutral" editors. I admit to tendentious editing, partly due to a temporary medical condition, and partly due to my conditioned responses to apparent wp:tag team edit warring/vandalism from my thousands of constructive edits and judicious edits as a former member of Vandal Patrol.

I was taken to 3R "court" multiple times and 'never have been found to violated the 3R rule. In frustration I took User:Jmh649 (Doc James) : to AN3R here for what appeared to unjustified reverts without clear justifications in multiple articles for reasons other consensus-based editing (ie removing valid sources without discussion of source's quality on Talk page). When I realized that I had brought this to the wrong noticeboard I promptly retracted with the statement "I've decided to retract this complaint and take it to more appropriate forum. - Technophant (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)". At this point I took this discussion to AN/I (here). This was clearly a mistake on my part I should have taken the issue to WP:DRN and if it could not be resolved there possibly WP:RFM. My original complaint was "User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding." User:Jmh649's reaction to this was swift and retaliatory. He brought up distorted information and suggested " would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)" This quickly resulted in: Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?[reply]

What followed was a slew of supporting votes. Apparently I wasn't aware of the unwritten rule "Never take an admin to AN/I" (sigh) The discussion was left open for less than 7 hours, resulting in 16 yes votes and 1 no vote. The discussion was closed 10 minutes after the only no vote by User:Adjwilley who had previously suggested my topic ban on a user talk page.

'Note: WP:TBAN states

Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly.

I followed procedures and tried to formally appeal Adjwilley's closing decision as "over broad and excessive duration" but was rejected.

So, I'm left with few options. I have answered all the allegations of SPI. I had put the notice that this account was a WP:Clean Start account on my userpage, even though this is not required. I switched from my main account to this one not to avoid sanctions. I did so because I was threatened, insulted, etc. and was trying to get a true clean start to avoid my attacker. I also added User:Technophant formerly User:Stillwaterising to the WP:Med members page. The reason I removed these notices was due to User:QuackGuru's dogged canvassing and attempts to OUT me. If I hadn't been threatened in such a manner I would have not tried to hide my previous identity. Also, please keep in mind that my that the last time I was actively editing was March 2010 and certain policies such as canvassing, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE are are have either substantially changed or are completely new. All of my new starts edits prior to July 2014 have been unquestionably constructive, uncontroversial, civil, and unrelated to any alt-med topics. In conclusion, this has all been very upsetting. To have my contributions, reputation, honesty, etc. condemned by multiple editor is a far cry from anything I could have ever expected. I'm blocked, I'm shamed, I've been insulted, and told that I should be involuntarily euthanized ie *killed*. Why do I bother even bother to fight this? Because I care. There's a limit to the amount of abuse I can take though. This case needs to be reviewed by uninvolved mature arbitrators who can take a fresh look at a very unusual case. - Technophant (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a little confused by a request for arbitration on a blocked user’s talkpage, but since I've been pinged, I’ll offer a comment. I tend to agree with Adjwilley, that Technophant's block shouldn’t be indefinite, and that it should be set to expire in a reasonable amount of time [14]. My understanding is that blocks are to protect WP and should not be punitive. An indefinite block here seems punitive. The user’s topic ban in alt.med seems to have covered protecting WP in the relevant and important ways. I’m not directly involved in any of the disputes, so it is possible I’ve missed something, but as far as I can see, the infractions that got Technophant in trouble since his topic ban were not edits to articles, but rather comments on talk pages and such in relation to concerns he has regarding general alt.med policies/issues and his concerns that an injustice has been done in his case. Such issues on talk pages do not require the same sort of protection/disciplinary action that disruption in articles does in my opinion. They do not seem to represent the same sort of threat to WP. Indefinitely blocking Technophant, and threatening to take away his talk page access, do not seem reasonable in my opinion, and could even present the troubling appearance of silencing Technophant regarding his general concerns in area of alt.med and any potential injustice that could possibly have occurred in his case.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat - Yes! I totally agree with your assessment. These blocks do seem to be punitive in nature and the alleged infractions petty and inconsequential. I would like to have my unblock request looked at and considered (in light of all information) and responded to promptly. - Technophant (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat, actually, the standard for when an unblock should occur is generally when there's no reason to believe that the problem will reoccur. Given that Technophant has violated his agreement to stick to his topic ban (which does extend to talk pages as well as articles) in the past, what do you think has changed that would make it unlikely that future violation would occur?—Kww(talk) 14:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I think you're trying to justify the block using the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE clause. In Wikipedia, or indeed the world, nothing is 100%. How can the community by assured that you (Kww) (or any other user) won't go an a tear and start attacking editors other editors or causing massive disruption? There's no 100% way to say it won't, however take a look at "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved. - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

User:Dennis Brown, User:Adjwilley. User:Zad68 and to other receptive admins - I've stated before that the wrong type of steroid shot I received on July 16th caused me to stop sleeping (completely for 3 days), then I got very little sleep in the following week. The injection also caused me to lose my normal state of mind and sound judgement and go overboard in my actions on noticeboards, edit warring, and talk pages leading to a topic ban from my obsessive ranting. The first warning regarding my editing was on July 18th (mere 2 days after injection). I'm feeling better now, sleeping, calm, over the physical effects of the shot (which in the past has taken up to a month for me get completely back to normal). Please take a look at my recent actions: I've been civil to all comers to my talk page (even to those who continue to attack me), I've been in email contact with Doc James and Adjwilley and having very civil, sane, constructive conversations with both admins. I have no plans at this time to take revenge or actions against other users who has bullied, insulted, or in any other way appeared to have acted without good faith etc. I just want things to go back to the way they were before this all happened. If I had any idea that my attempt to reintroduce new medical research into the area of acupuncture would have caused such a brew-haha I would have never had even attempted it.

There seems to be a misconception that my WP:Clean Start account has something to do with trying to evade sanctions occurred while using my original account, User:Stillwaterising. As I've explained before, I was only threatened with a topic ban in 2010 (for alleged legal threats) but not actually convicted and I since have voluntarily stopped editing in that area (on either account). As I have grown spiritually I have come to realize that that is not an area that is healthy for me and I was getting way too worked up regarding the lack of clear pornography guidelines (including images of minors). [Note: That incident also had something to do with a steroid shot(s) driving me to hyperactivity and obsession and while no users have brought this old issue up, however I thought I should do so in the spirit of full-disclosure.]

The real reason I quit editing as Stillwaterising was due to off-wiki (but not off-record) legal threats and attempted outing by then General Counsel, Mr. Mike Godwin. I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, however Mike left of his position a few months after this happened and was known to be a "loose cannon" ([15]). As stated previously, instead of going to Human Resources, the Board, the director or any other appropriate action I internalized this attack and got extremely discouraged, depressed, and even had/have PTSD regarding his. I was glad to come back, and even was starting to "come out" in the wp:med member's list [16] in hopes that I could continue to edit without having my past controversies come the attention of the community at large. However, due to the dogged attempts of outing by User:QuackGuru, the connection WAS found, and it has been looked into by several admins and it has been determined that I was NOT abusing the right to have an alternate account nor "socking" (see this and this). I'm an establish, experienced editor with a long record of positive contributions (over 8k global edits and over 2,000k pages edited on enwiki and a half dozen created, created/edited templates, helped define guidelines, 50 Commons uploads (mostly medical imaging), AfD participation, and so so much more). I'm very upset that things got so ugly, and I do acknowledge that my failure to disclose myself properly is a big part of why this got so ugly.

I feel that the topic ban is now clearly written, I plan to stay away from all articles regarding medicine for a time, then go back to editing article relating to anatomy and spinal issues that are withing the scope of conventional medicine. If I have question regarding the Topic Ban I will consult an admin first before editing.

Again, I wish this all hadn't happened, I've certainly learned my lesson and wish to continue onward with integrity and transparency. - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Dennis Brown]], [[User:Adjwilley]]. [[User:Zad68]] and to other receptive admins - I've stated before that the wrong type of [[decadron|steroid shot]] I received on July 16th caused me to stop sleeping (completely for 3 days), then I got very little sleep in the following week. The injection also caused me to lose my normal state of mind and sound judgement and go overboard in my actions on noticeboards, edit warring, and talk pages leading to a topic ban from my obsessive ranting. The [[User_talk:Technophant/Archive_1#July_2014_2|first warning]] regarding my editing was on July 18th (mere 2 days after injection). I'm feeling better now, sleeping, calm, over the physical effects of the shot (which in the past has taken up to a month for me get completely back to normal). Please take a look at my recent actions: I've been civil to all comers to my talk page (even to those who continue to attack me), I've been in email contact with Doc James and Adjwilley and having very civil, sane, constructive conversations with both admins. I have no plans at this time to take revenge or actions against other users who has bullied, insulted, or in any other way appeared to have acted without good faith etc. I just want things to go back to the way they were before this all happened. If I had any idea that my attempt to reintroduce new medical research into the area of acupuncture would have caused such a brew-haha I would have never had even attempted it. There seems to be a misconception that my [[WP:Clean Start]] account has something to do with trying to evade sanctions occurred while using my original account, [[User:Stillwaterising]]. As I've explained before, I was only ''threatened'' with a topic ban in 2010 (for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Futanari alleged legal threats]) but not actually convicted and I since have voluntarily stopped editing in that area (on either account). As I have grown spiritually I have come to realize that that is not an area that is healthy for me and I was getting way too worked up regarding the lack of clear pornography guidelines (including images of minors). [Note: That incident ''also'' had something to do with a steroid shot(s) driving me to hyperactivity and obsession and while no users have brought this old issue up, however I thought I should do so in the spirit of full-disclosure.] The real reason I quit editing as Stillwaterising was due to off-wiki (but not off-record) legal threats and attempted outing by then General Counsel, Mr. Mike Godwin. I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, however Mike [[wikinews:Wikimedia Foundation announces departure of general counsel Mike Godwin|left]] of his position a few months after this happened and was known to be a "loose cannon" ([http://mashable.com/2010/08/03/wikipedia-fbi-seal/]). As stated previously, instead of going to Human Resources, the Board, the director or any other appropriate action I internalized this attack and got extremely discouraged, depressed, and even had/have PTSD regarding his. I was glad to come back, and even was starting to "come out" in the wp:med member's list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants&diff=617738414&oldid=617199269] in hopes that I could continue to edit without having my past controversies come the attention of the community at large. However, due to the [[User_talk:Kww#I_think_it_is_time_to_file_a_SPI|dogged attempts]] of [[wp:outing|outing]] by [[User:QuackGuru]], the connection WAS found, and it has been looked into by several admins and it has been determined that I was NOT abusing the right to have an alternate account nor "socking" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=prev&oldid=618364599 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Klocek&diff=618743055&oldid=618689741 this]). I'm an establish, experienced editor with a long record of positive contributions (over 8k global edits and over 2,000k pages edited on enwiki and a half dozen created, created/edited templates, helped define guidelines, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=100&user=Stillwaterising 50 Commons uploads] (mostly medical imaging), AfD participation, and so so much more). I'm very upset that things got so ugly, and I do acknowledge that my failure to disclose myself properly is a big part of why this got so ugly. I feel that the topic ban is now clearly written, I plan to stay away from all articles regarding medicine for a time, then go back to editing article relating to anatomy and spinal issues that are withing the scope of conventional medicine. If I have question regarding the Topic Ban I will consult an admin first before editing. Again, I wish this all hadn't happened, I've certainly learned my lesson and wish to continue onward with integrity and transparency. - [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] ([[User talk:Technophant|talk]]) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Dennis Brown]], [[User:Adjwilley]]. [[User:Zad68]] and to other receptive admins - I've stated before that the wrong type of [[decadron|steroid shot]] I received on July 16th caused me to stop sleeping (completely for 3 days), then I got very little sleep in the following week. The injection also caused me to lose my normal state of mind and sound judgement and go overboard in my actions on noticeboards, edit warring, and talk pages leading to a topic ban from my obsessive ranting. The [[User_talk:Technophant/Archive_1#July_2014_2|first warning]] regarding my editing was on July 18th (mere 2 days after injection). I'm feeling better now, sleeping, calm, over the physical effects of the shot (which in the past has taken up to a month for me get completely back to normal). Please take a look at my recent actions: I've been civil to all comers to my talk page (even to those who continue to attack me), I've been in email contact with Doc James and Adjwilley and having very civil, sane, constructive conversations with both admins. I have no plans at this time to take revenge or actions against other users who has bullied, insulted, or in any other way appeared to have acted without good faith etc. I just want things to go back to the way they were before this all happened. If I had any idea that my attempt to reintroduce new medical research into the area of acupuncture would have caused such a brew-haha I would have never had even attempted it. There seems to be a misconception that my [[WP:Clean Start]] account has something to do with trying to evade sanctions occurred while using my original account, [[User:Stillwaterising]]. As I've explained before, I was only ''threatened'' with a topic ban in 2010 (for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Futanari alleged legal threats]) but not actually convicted and I since have voluntarily stopped editing in that area (on either account). As I have grown spiritually I have come to realize that that is not an area that is healthy for me and I was getting way too worked up regarding the lack of clear pornography guidelines (including images of minors). [Note: That incident ''also'' had something to do with a steroid shot(s) driving me to hyperactivity and obsession and while no users have brought this old issue up, however I thought I should do so in the spirit of full-disclosure.] The real reason I quit editing as Stillwaterising was due to off-wiki (but not off-record) legal threats and attempted outing by then General Counsel, Mr. Mike Godwin. I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, however Mike [[wikinews:Wikimedia Foundation announces departure of general counsel Mike Godwin|left]] of his position a few months after this happened and was known to be a "loose cannon" ([http://mashable.com/2010/08/03/wikipedia-fbi-seal/]). As stated previously, instead of going to Human Resources, the Board, the director or any other appropriate action I internalized this attack and got extremely discouraged, depressed, and even had/have PTSD regarding his. I was glad to come back, and even was starting to "come out" in the wp:med member's list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants&diff=617738414&oldid=617199269] in hopes that I could continue to edit without having my past controversies come the attention of the community at large. However, due to the [[User_talk:Kww#I_think_it_is_time_to_file_a_SPI|dogged attempts]] of [[wp:outing|outing]] by [[User:QuackGuru]], the connection WAS found, and it has been looked into by several admins and it has been determined that I was NOT abusing the right to have an alternate account nor "socking" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=prev&oldid=618364599 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Klocek&diff=618743055&oldid=618689741 this]). I'm an establish, experienced editor with a long record of positive contributions (over 8k global edits and over 2,000k pages edited on enwiki and a half dozen created, created/edited templates, helped define guidelines, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=100&user=Stillwaterising 50 Commons uploads] (mostly medical imaging), AfD participation, and so so much more). I'm very upset that things got so ugly, and I do acknowledge that my failure to disclose myself properly is a big part of why this got so ugly. I feel that the topic ban is now clearly written, I plan to stay away from all articles regarding medicine for a time, then go back to editing article relating to anatomy and spinal issues that are withing the scope of conventional medicine. If I have question regarding the Topic Ban I will consult an admin first before editing. Again, I wish this all hadn't happened, I've certainly learned my lesson and wish to continue onward with integrity and transparency. - [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] ([[User talk:Technophant|talk]]) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Dennis Brown]], [[User:Adjwilley]]. [[User:Zad68]] and to other receptive admins - I've stated before that the wrong type of [[decadron|steroid shot]] I received on July 16th caused me to stop sleeping (completely for 3 days), then I got very little sleep in the following week. The injection also caused me to lose my normal state of mind and sound judgement and go overboard in my actions on noticeboards, edit warring, and talk pages leading to a topic ban from my obsessive ranting. The [[User_talk:Technophant/Archive_1#July_2014_2|first warning]] regarding my editing was on July 18th (mere 2 days after injection). I'm feeling better now, sleeping, calm, over the physical effects of the shot (which in the past has taken up to a month for me get completely back to normal). Please take a look at my recent actions: I've been civil to all comers to my talk page (even to those who continue to attack me), I've been in email contact with Doc James and Adjwilley and having very civil, sane, constructive conversations with both admins. I have no plans at this time to take revenge or actions against other users who has bullied, insulted, or in any other way appeared to have acted without good faith etc. I just want things to go back to the way they were before this all happened. If I had any idea that my attempt to reintroduce new medical research into the area of acupuncture would have caused such a brew-haha I would have never had even attempted it. There seems to be a misconception that my [[WP:Clean Start]] account has something to do with trying to evade sanctions occurred while using my original account, [[User:Stillwaterising]]. As I've explained before, I was only ''threatened'' with a topic ban in 2010 (for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Futanari alleged legal threats]) but not actually convicted and I since have voluntarily stopped editing in that area (on either account). As I have grown spiritually I have come to realize that that is not an area that is healthy for me and I was getting way too worked up regarding the lack of clear pornography guidelines (including images of minors). [Note: That incident ''also'' had something to do with a steroid shot(s) driving me to hyperactivity and obsession and while no users have brought this old issue up, however I thought I should do so in the spirit of full-disclosure.] The real reason I quit editing as Stillwaterising was due to off-wiki (but not off-record) legal threats and attempted outing by then General Counsel, Mr. Mike Godwin. I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, however Mike [[wikinews:Wikimedia Foundation announces departure of general counsel Mike Godwin|left]] of his position a few months after this happened and was known to be a "loose cannon" ([http://mashable.com/2010/08/03/wikipedia-fbi-seal/]). As stated previously, instead of going to Human Resources, the Board, the director or any other appropriate action I internalized this attack and got extremely discouraged, depressed, and even had/have PTSD regarding his. I was glad to come back, and even was starting to "come out" in the wp:med member's list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants&diff=617738414&oldid=617199269] in hopes that I could continue to edit without having my past controversies come the attention of the community at large. However, due to the [[User_talk:Kww#I_think_it_is_time_to_file_a_SPI|dogged attempts]] of [[wp:outing|outing]] by [[User:QuackGuru]], the connection WAS found, and it has been looked into by several admins and it has been determined that I was NOT abusing the right to have an alternate account nor "socking" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=prev&oldid=618364599 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Klocek&diff=618743055&oldid=618689741 this]). I'm an establish, experienced editor with a long record of positive contributions (over 8k global edits and over 2,000k pages edited on enwiki and a half dozen created, created/edited templates, helped define guidelines, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=100&user=Stillwaterising 50 Commons uploads] (mostly medical imaging), AfD participation, and so so much more). I'm very upset that things got so ugly, and I do acknowledge that my failure to disclose myself properly is a big part of why this got so ugly. I feel that the topic ban is now clearly written, I plan to stay away from all articles regarding medicine for a time, then go back to editing article relating to anatomy and spinal issues that are withing the scope of conventional medicine. If I have question regarding the Topic Ban I will consult an admin first before editing. Again, I wish this all hadn't happened, I've certainly learned my lesson and wish to continue onward with integrity and transparency. - [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] ([[User talk:Technophant|talk]]) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Comment - I am requesting that the blocking admin, User:Kww, not be involved in this unblock request as per my right to request that "blocks can be reviewed by, and discussed with, a different administrator who is not involved, if requested." from WP:APPEAL. Kww's distrust of me has been repeatedly stated, and my attempts to reconcile this distrust have not been effective. - Technophant (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot deny the unblock request, per our policy. Nothing in our policies prevents me from commenting on your unblock request, and I still do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to this block won't repeat themselves.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been informed of before Discussion with the blocking admin would be nice. In this case the closing/blocking admin for the topic ban is Adjwilley, and he and I are working together to help define what is or isn't appropriate. I never wanted to step into this Battleground of "Fringe" alt-med. When I left editing in mid-2010 this battleground didn't exist, however there now clearly seems to be clear boundaries, declared combatants, and some occasional "collateral damage" to uninvolved editor such as myself. I can see that under the username Technophant with no apparent history of medical talk and suspicion of sock puppetry I was indef. topic banned from alt-med in a "summary execution". Now that it's known that I am/was a long-time member of wp:med, and if you look at Acupuncture's edit history you'll see that I have 28 edits previously as Stillwaterising with 4.5kB of added information, and only one slight dispute where I added the same information and followed the WP:BRD guidelines. The conclusion of that was to make the now deleted article myofascial meridians which, as the article creator and sole creator it could seem obvious now why I felt some ownership issues regarding it (RIP :-{). - Technophant (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also just discovered (I wasn't notified for some reason) that there's a SPI investigation where I am suspected to be tied to Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek where Kww has already decided that any editor that geo-locates from San Antonio and has similar behavior should be blocked and that I am guilty until proved innocent (obvious from is repeated I don't trust/believe you comments). This investigation has not been closed and while I'm unable to defend myself (because of Kww's blocks) I know that if there's any fairness to the whole process it should soon be closed hopefully. Technophant (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason that you didn't point out that you have already confessed to being every IP involved in that discussion? That your behaviour as those IPs is the direct reason that you are currently blocked?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww,???? I've already admitted that I made the 3 IP edits from 2 different IPs were mine and I do recognize now that it was an evasion of the topic ban. The last IP edit was just meant to be a humorous response to my comment that I dislike editors who log out to make off-record comments. It was immature and unacceptable. - Technophant (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• RFC- I'm pinging some admins that either knew me as Stillwaterising or were involved in the 2010 ANI discussion regarding alleged WP:NLT in response to questionably legal images: User:SlimVirgin, User:Brandon, User:Golbez, and User:Dcoetzee. - Technophant (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yo. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Golbez, in the 2010 AN/I debate referenced above you were advocating a block/ban on my part. I offered that I voluntarily back off. After this debate was closed, to the best of your recollection, do you recall that Stillwaterising or this alternate clean-start account ever show up on your radar for any type of similar infraction? I need to establish that I'm able to respect topic bans (or even threats of such) and able to change my behavior. Ty. - Technophant (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that event was the only notice I've ever taken of you. --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Golbez. - Technophant (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one. My recollection of the events you mention is minimal and I have absolutely no idea what's going on on this page. I wish you the best of luck in finding a amicable resolution. Brandon (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dougweller - you are the only admin I'm aware of who regularly contributes to the ISIS (militant group) and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I'm sure you've seen my talk page comments and article edits there as well as other Iraq/Syria articles. Is there any reason that you know of why I should be blocked as an editor as per Kww's block reasons (and unblock rejections) above? - Technophant (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport unblock request: Since I began editing on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages in early June, I have found Technophant nothing but a helpful and vigilant editor who contributed a lot to improving the article, without any edit-warring or disputes with others. He always struck me as a good team member. So to learn about his current block and the reasons for it came as a very big surprise. I would like see him have the chance to return to editing and prove his intent to contribute in a constructive manner. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To @everybody, I'm asking that this block end today. I'll stay away from all medical articles for now and just focus on trying to get back up to speed on the rapidly evolving situation in Iraq and the Levant. If I have any questions I'll ask a friendly administrator like Adjwilley or Doc James about what they think is appropriate regarding the CBAN. The idea of being blocked for 6 months or longer, perhaps is appropriate for teenager who is used be handed down suspensions and blocks and will just go find another community to disrupt while having some chance of maturing in the interim. I'm in my 40's and have a degenerative health condition. While I do expect to be alive in a one year, and if I can't be sure if I'll be able to think/type/read well enough to be of much use here if my condition can not be stabilized or reversed. I have the will and interest now and can't see any further justification for a block that isn't punitive. - Technophant (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock request with the understanding that Technophant is going to stay away from any pages to do with medicine broadly construed. I'll add that I really know nothing about the circumstances that led to this and haven't read all of the above. I am basing this purely on my observations of Technophant at the Islamic State articles where he has been no problem. Technophant presumably accepts that there will be no second chance if he messes this up. I'm not unblocking because I don't know enough about the situation. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock request per Dougweller's reasoning. And Technophant actually got unblocked only to be re-blocked a few minutes later for this stupid comment. To be fair, he wasn't talking about about his topic ban although he still commented in the area of this topic ban. I do not know how serious topic ban violations are supposed to be, but I'm sure Technophant has learned this lesson. As long as he avoids any medicine-related topics broadly construed, I support giving him a chance. It looks like Technophant has no interest in medicine anymore, and he had no problems on other topic areas. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it was stupid. Attempting to be humorous, not meant to be anything other than that. - Technophant (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Technophant: I think you might be overreacting in your unblock request. Your block is for WP:TBAN, so you need to focus on convincing admins to stay away from your topic ban for any hopes of being unblocked. (Which you have, but there's too much unnecessary details in your unblock request.) Other than that, I don't know what else you can say. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not getting a good feeling about this editor and after reviewing some of the history, generally feel they will be a net-negative. If there's going to be an unblock, would have to agree with the others commenting that Technophant would need to stay away from medical content broadly construed. Zad68 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zad - If you really got to know me as a person and not a username I think you'd feel differently. I've been much more open about my identity this go-around than last. Take a listen to this self-composed piece of original CC'licensed acoustic guitar music and tell me if you think I'm still think I'm "bad-feeling"/"net-negative" kind of dude: http://technophant.com/music/morning-rag/ Also, legal decisions affecting users MUST be based on fact, not feeling. Just because I remind you of other users or sock-masters is irrelevant. I must be judged on my actions and not on "pre-judgement" (prejudice). - Technophant (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock request - The user in question was subjected to some degree of intimidation and harassment, having to deal with direct personal attacks and provocative remarks such as "You are becoming an enormous time sink." as well as many covert attempts to intimidate, including offensive insults such as "That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level.". This does not excuse the user's behavior, but I'm surprised that the admins only focused on one side of the dispute and did not take action against the other parties to the dispute. WP:RFC/ADMIN may be necessary if this continues. -A1candidate (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A1candidate Those diffs are only the tip of the iceberg. While Brangifer has spent hours collecting every diff he can find that he feels he can present to the community to show that I've acted improperly, I have not wasted my time to do the same in return. Perhaps that time will come. I have made every effort to be civil and have until recently tried to ignore the personal attacks and other attacks on my credibility, however some users have gone too far. User:BullRangifer's (block log) repeated attacks on me, concluding this statement "[[Involuntary euthanasia|They'd be better off]] if they stopped editing" in this diff is just small part of a series of personal attacks It's a death threat (Involuntary euthanasia = somebody should kill him = murder) which should result in a swift punitive action. "Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning." I can come up with a dozen other examples where this user has attacked, threatened, or insulted me, including attacking me. WP needs to be a safe place to share. I have no clue as to why his disruptions are tolerated. I also can not find a precedent or justification as to why I am repeatedly blocked (and even having my talk page privileges being threatened) for the smallest infractions. It seem that civility, AGF, and sanity have all been pushed aside in favor of further battleground attacks. I want to call a truce and an end to all this chicanery. Even in the face of all these things, I have remained civil and have refrained from being abusive or insulting and that should be noticed. I've been honest to a fault regarding my situation, I feel that I deserve to be treated fairly. - Technophant (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: BRangifer's comment on my talk page was not a death threat any more than your "cease and desist" comment above was a legal threat, and I have already seen several users correct you on this point. Continuing to repeat this claim in the face of contradictory evidence is not helping your case. (It's also slightly ironic that you invoke WP:AGF in the same paragraph.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]