Jump to content

User talk:Technophant/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

And again ....

Blocked again

Stop icon
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

Note about edit warring

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)

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

File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

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)

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)
Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
It's not my map. Find the author on twitter and ask. - Technophant (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
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)

@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)


Edit refraction, disruptive editing by User:BullRangifer ("Brangifer")

In the past week this user has made personal attacks, given me false/incorrect information regarding PAN on talk pages, threatened me with blocks/bans numerous times. However in this edit on my old account, he not only is he only wrong - he also removed my Inactive template. Due to his bull-headed nature, and complete unwillingness to compromise or act in good faith I am hereby blocking him from editing my talk pages. I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to please restore my talkpage template. I said I will not use that account again and I will not allow this user to be a timesink to me any longer. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That was an unintended deletion and I have restored the template. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
BullRangifer, despite my being clearly and unambiguously being told (before the block and without any community objection) that you are not to write on my talk page here you have twice [2] [3] thought that your unapologetic actions (and above does not count as apology for your personal attacks etc.) can just be allowed because??? If this user wants to have his views represented here he MUST either get another user (except Quack Guru who has also be disallowed) to represent his views instead. This is topic-wide sanity check and I am not simply trying to block him for expressing a viewpoint. - Technophant (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank you for respecting my wishes. I would prefer to archive my userpage but it is impossible to create an archive while being restricted to only this talk page. You can reply to this message here. - Technophant (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be very happy to help create an archive for you and proceed to archive some of your stuff. I can recover stuff from the history so the archived material is complete. Is that okay? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Bulldog, (if you don't me calling you that), you can go ahead and take all my diffs marked "cleanup" and move them to an archive page. I would appreciate it if you set up Mizabot as well. Thx. - Technophant (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Since my username has to do with extremely peaceful reindeer, not pitbulls, I'd rather you just call me Brangifer or BullRangifer. I'm a "bull rangifer", IOW a bull reindeer/caribou. I've shot 16 of them in Greenland. You can read my article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland if you want to learn more about that subject.
I'll start the archiving, but someone else will have to do the Mizabot part, since I've never done it. - Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've archived that material. There was a lot of it! It won't likely be an exact picture of your page from before the last date on the last post in that archive, but I don't see any way to do that now, simply because what you deleted was selectively chosen from in the middle of lots of other content.
In the future, if you'll just identify, from top to bottom, the lowest section where there hasn't been any activity above that point for some time, and then archive everything above that point (empty it all above that point), you'll end up with an archive that essentially recreates what's happened on your talk page. That's the general idea with an archive. Just keep whatever headings you wish to always have at the top.
Just add new material to the bottom of the archive. When it gets too long, start a new one, using the same URL format and header code. The Mizabot part is something I can't do, so you'll need to ask someone else. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Brangifer (User:AntiqueReader) Thanks. There is a lot, almost all from this month. I have trouble with learning new names, can I call you Bullranger? That won't be confusing to other editors and doesn't seem offensive. If you would take a look at [4] you'll see all my contribs from account start to the end of June. It doesn't take much to see I'm a productive editor with a wide varieties of interests with a focus on the Middle East. No edit wars, no conflicts, no diva statements, just productive edits. I wish the last two weeks would just go away so I can go back to doing what I enjoy, contributing. - Technophant (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Best wishes
    I hope that after some time your block is lifted and you can resume pleasurable constructive participation. I think some good advice has been given and if followed you will find yourself once again a welcome member of the community. The events of the last two weeks are likely to fade into obscurity (I'd be cautious as sometimes things re-emerge). I'd like to think the community has some understanding that we all have rough periods. I'd like to express my regret that your experience has been so rough, editing Wikipedia is supposed to be WP:FUN. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you "oh no it's Mr. Bill!" (lulz from SNL). In this restricted state I can't even use the Thank feature. :-{ If you take a look a what I posted above, my contrib history from start to end of June you'll see nothing but solid editing, no drama. [I hate drama.] The problems started 16 July (right before this episode started) when a doctor mistakenly gave me a Decadron steroid shot in my wrist even though I had it in my chart that I'm allergic to it. That drug is notorious for causing agitation, paranoia, insomnia, aggression, obsessive hyperactive behavior in around 15% of patients. I emailed User:Jmh649 because of his medical background I thought he'd understand.
Decadron's bad news, and it's long lasting. In the past reactions from Decadron have caused me to lose a job, fights with family, getting in conflicts with friends and roommates causing me to get kicked out an more. Unf. it's long lasting and there's no antidote. As on doctor told me "you can't un-inject the drug, you just have to wait it out." From the medical literature and past experience it takes around a month for it wear off, so I'm going to apologize both for my past actions and potential future ones. I see two options here, either we wait until August 16th to unblock me, or we come to a consensus that even a mentally disturbed editor can still be productive even though he isn't quite right in the head. I prefer the later. While there's perhaps 100,000 active editors, there's only 6k roll-backers like myself and perhaps even fewer with the editing experience and Wikimarkup experience I have. Yes, there's others that can do these things but the lose of any experienced edit is a loss to the whole project as a whole, a lose that should be avoided if at all possible.
In summary, we all go through episodes, some more than other. I think what's important is who we are inside, not the sum of our mistakes. Cam you agree with me on this?? - Technophant (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I don't assess whats important about people. I just do my best to get along with them. Second, I am sorry if you have had a bad experience with a medication. I hope all is (or is soon) well. Third, I will take no position on your blocking/unblocking I leave that to administrators. I would guess your block will be lifted at some time. Finally, I'm not sure why you would want to resume editing when not able and ready to act responsibly. It is really not my business though. I wish you well and hope at some time you return to the project fruitfully and happily. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Wish you well and hope you are better soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@User:Jmh649, I can't reply on your page obviously so thank you very much for the get well wishes. The next few weeks are going to be "make or break" health-wise and I'm working hard on reducing my nicotine levels I get through vaping from to 12 to 6 to zero mg/ml. I do mention you below in the new Arb request I'm considering. It may help explain the confusion/conflict we had in editing. I remember emailing you before I was blocked. I think that while the email function seems to function while I'm blocked I'm getting the impression that the actual "send email to user" part of the code isn't working despite sending the copy to my own inbox. Can you confirm this and could also you please reply to my email? Thx - Technophant (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom is unlikely to solve the issues you are having. With respect to returning to editing, if you are interested in working on non alt med stuff that should be possible.
A good way to return to editing is to do possitive work on another project such as Wikimedia Commons or Wikivoyage and than in a few weeks request an unban acknowledging that you will not edit alt med (main stream religious stuff would be fun but not religious stuff that is claiming to be science). Did receive an email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you try to take very literally my metaphorical wording? I wrote the following, and only by ignoring the other words in the same sentence which give it context, can one take it literally, which would be absurd:

  • "Technophant (and socks/IPs) is not good for Wikipedia, and editing here is likely not good for their mental state in the real world. They'd be better off if they stopped editing and discussing here, and the community will be thankful."

The context is a ban discussion, and banning from Wikipedia is an "involuntary" thing, metaphorically an involuntary euthanasia (from editing here). I have no weapons, and haven't for 23 years, unless you want to call a pellet pistol a weapon. I haven't hunted since Greenland. I have no idea who you are in the real world and am not interested in knowing. We don't threaten other editors with death here, although getting banned is a sort of "death sentence" here, which has NOTHING to do with the real world, or real death. You are NOT in any form of danger. If we met in the real world, we'd probably have a jolly good time and share some beers, or at least a coffee.

I was clearly expressing my concern for your health. Stress caused by conflicts here is a real life thing. I've been through Arbitration once, and not only survived, I was later vindicated. It was a very distressing experience, because I had no rights and my accusers were allowed to break every rule against undocumented false accusations. In the end, my accusers got the hardest punishment it is possible to get here: Indef bans by the Arbitration committee itself, and indefinite community bans. So I know about wikistress and am concerned for your health, but this break will be good for you. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just noting that my comment above was made in light of this permission. I don't think such bans of civil discourse from a talk page should be allowed in this type of situation. That is itself a violation of the reason we have talk pages, and why editors do not own their own talk page. It also demonstrates an uncollaborative spirit. I request Technophant to be more collaborative, drop the bans, and allow proper conversation. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, be careful about meatpuppetry. This edit encourages forbidden behavior. You are not allowed to influence other editors to make edits which you are not allowed to make. Also, calling Atlan's removal a "bad faith" removal is a personal attack and dmeonstration of bad faith on your part. Please take the high road and don't sink to such tactics. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would second Brangifer's word of caution. Attempts to work around a block by asking others to perform edits for you is the type of behavior that will certainly be considered in any review of your block. Using talk page access to recruit meatpuppetry may well result in a total block. I must say AGF is strained beyond breaking by this. Why engage in a battle with Atlan rather than follow the advice to quietly and constructively contribute to other projects and return to ask for a review of your block after some time for the waters to still? Constructive behavior goes a long way in establishing or repairing an editor's reputation. Continued disruptive behavior particularly ban evasion, block evasion and meatpuppetry can solidify a negative impression. I find it nearly impossible to believe you were unaware that requesting other editors to perform edits you are blocked from is prohibited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Y'all have a right to your opinions but I don't have to agree with them. - Technophant (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but I suggest you adapt your style to a more friendly and collaborative style, something which is required of all editors. You are required to AGF. That's a non-negotiable policy which you must follow. Your treatment of editors on this page ("banning" them when they have done nothing wrong) because you don't agree with them, or don't like what they write, is grounds enough to call for removal of your access to this talk page, which would make your blocking complete, as it should be. You have not shown signs of improving your behavior, and have been treating others very poorly.
You mention (note second part of this edit) that "There's been discussion of putting full page protection on my talk page,... " Yes, but that protection would be to protect it from you editing it, not anyone else. In your position as a blocked editor, removal of your talk page access is often the result of misuse of the talk page by the blocked editor. You have indeed been misusing it by banning editors, and engaging in meatpuppetry. Now you are going to continue it off-wiki ("P123ct1 Please email me"). Well, that's still forbidden. Meatpuppetry isn't allowed, and it can get editors who cooperate with you into trouble.
If you can't edit alongside editors who hold opposing opinions, then you shouldn't be here at all. Talk pages are for communication, and when you block legitimate communication, you are violating the spirit of WP:TALK. Only gross misuse of a talk page should lead to banning an editor from that page. That is not the case here. The history of this page gives abundant evidence that you are difficult to work with and that you punish anyone who disagrees with you. We can't allow you to continue to misuse this page for your own purposes. It never has completely belonged to you, and certainly even less now in your blocked state, but instead you abuse it grossly. This must stop. Therefore I'm requesting that your talk page access be blocked and that your indef block be finalized in that manner. Pinging Kww.
Note that your likely removal of this comment, as you have banned others and removed their comments ([5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]), often with snarky edit summaries, will not make it "disappear", but it will provide even more evidence that what I have said is true. A collaborative editor discusses. An uncollaborative one assumes bad faith and closes the door to communication. We don't need such editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Is your "banning" of every critical user from this talk page part of those conflict resolving abilities you claim to have? Do you intend to further display this inability at collaboration when unblocked? That said, I can at least understand why you would be frustrated, because this unblock request is taking a very long time to be answered. I thought it was a pretty reasonable request, but the long wait has seemingly caused you to repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

  • Technophant, can I have your permission to remove these intimidating comments from Brangifer that are directed against me, specifically? I do not intend to get involved and I don't want my name to be mentioned. Thanks for your understanding. -A1candidate (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
A1candidate Those comments are now hidden inside the collapse box. I've been reprimanded for removing comments before, so for now they are hidden. I understand your frustration but I prefer things remain where they are. - Technophant (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Stop icon 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)

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 threatening 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)
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)
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)
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)
I've now stricken and withdrawn all my comments. I apologize if they were taken in a threatening manner. - Technophant (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Answering allegations of sockpuppetry, attempted outings, and the truth of why I hid my identity

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)"

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)

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)

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)

Declined unblock

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)

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)

Civility

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)

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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

Possible Resignation

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)

Unblocked!!

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

Rewording of topic ban

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant/Archive_2&oldid=1142743969"