User talk:Technophant/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Technophant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

9 October 2014

I just reverted an edit you made changing many ISILs to Islamic State. You may not be aware of the many failed move attempts to move to Islamic State for the article and related articles. Continued debate toward using "Islamic State" has now been deemed disruptive and topic bans and other sanctions could be imposed. (not a threat by me, just trying to give you a heads up). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#An_RM_to_ISIS.3F and look at the collapsed section. and editors are now being warned and one got a 3 month ISIL topic ban already. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac First, the discussion has been closed by whom? There's no signature or closing decision. I've been away for the last two weeks and did not see the discussion. And why is it collapsed? Also, this change has nothing to do with "end run around RM". It's just a common sense bold proposal. I've made a new proposal to use contextually appropriate names. ~Technophant (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked into it and found that User:PBS had closed the discussion and changed the archive algo from 14 days to 3 days then 7 days. I missed everything due to this. There seems to be strong feelings from Legacypac that seem to be based on personal issues, not WP guidelines. Please also note that Legacypac's edit here with battlegroundish edit summary also removed a spelling correction. I don't like conflict, I don't want to edit war, and I don't want to get TBanned. There's civil ways of handing this. I think this issue to go to Dispute Resolution. 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the top of the talk page for the pull down list of page changes. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text where wide input was solicited and the conclusion reached we would be consistent with ISIL not "Islamic State". Look at the title of the article. If you want to dispute the title again, good luck. My attitude is not battleground, it is "let's be consistent". There is no point in having RMs and Rfcs to make decisions and than have editors just do whatever and threaten the editors with dispute resolution for sticking to the decisions. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac If you look I support a moratorium on article renaming. The proposed change of the acroymn does not mean that ISIL is the only name for the group. If that is so then you should go to the ISI section and change that acronym to ISIL too. Does that make sense? No. Please answer my question on the ISIL talk page on why you think the name "Islamic State" is "very problematic".17:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not change the archive length to 3 days that was done by a different editor (to 4 days) and reverted by that editor back to 7 days. I set it to 7 days because at the moment there is over 20K a day going into the talk page. That meant that before I changed the time to 7 days it was over 450k which is far too large for a talk page for anyone on a slow link or a pay per byte tariff.
The section to which you refer was there when you posted to the page 03:55, 12 October 2014 it was there when I replied at 13:14, 12 October 2014. It was still there when you next edited Wikiepdia at 21:25, 13 October 2014. So it was there for you to view and add opinions. It was not "It was archived prematurely" it was archived at 01:29, 15 October 2014‎ (less than 24 hours ago).
I see you have edited User talk:GraniteSand but you have totally missed the point in the second edit link it has nothing to do with the edit clash that put back some words by P123ct1 which P123ct1 had removed. It had everything to do with the paragraph at the bottom of that link which starts "Warned? You seem to be under ...". Hence my detailed explanation and highlighting of several sentences when I imposed the temporary ban.

-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Like I said, I've been out of the loop for a while, however what I've known of User:GraniteSand is that he has been a constructive editor in this area. There's a battleground going on, however I don't think GS is the problem. I'm sorry I accused you of changeing it 3 days. It really should have been discussed before anybody changed it, however I see that you were trying in GF to help fix it. You proposed the moratorium over 7 days ago there seems to only support for it so let's put that in place and hope it calms things down.~Technophant (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events

I was not the author of all the nonsense edits on the ISIL events timeline page. Except for updates on situation in Kobane, my only edit was "*1 October: the town of Taza Kharmatho is retaken by Peshmerga and Iraqi Army forces, but remains uninhabitable due to booby traps left by ISIL.". It was sourced, and if that is not considered a reliable source, then half of what is on that page doesn't have a reliable source. It seems to me that you refused all the additions caught in the review period without checking each one, and that's pretty irritating.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@2.35.58.16: I wasn't the editor that rejected the edits. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Feel free to redo you unaccepted edit. I'll remove your warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Using The in ISIL

You reverted my changes here. Can you please help me understand why this is better or more clear? I don't see it that way.~Technophant (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:: I thought it was a mistake. The version just before the one I altered here started with "As Islamic State of Iraq" and then went on to add a "the" before the ISIS and IS headings. I also remembered that when the article had "As" in the subheadings, there was no "the" in the titles. I didn't realise you had added "the" deliberately! I do think "the" looks a little strange, but would you like me to revert? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:: I am trying to archive my Talk page, not very successfully, and thought I had better put your message here in case it gets lost. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Do you need help? I prefer to manually archive my talk page but I can also set up automatic.~Technophant (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I managed it! It was by trial and error like last time because I couldn't understand the WP Help on archiving properly. I couldn't remember some of the steps I took last time. Phew! What about the edit? Would you like me to change it back? I don't mind, but it will have to be tomorrow as it is very late here. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Yes, please change it back. I want to get wider input on it b4 relenting to remove it. (was that too sarcastic?)~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't self-revert, as the diff I got wasn't mine, so did it manually. Remember it was only two "The"s that I changed, and no, it wasn't sarcastic! --P123ct1 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Talk page

Potential trouble here. See last few entries. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I took him to wp:ANI. Please go there and give supporting evidence.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Technophant, in future cases like this please consider transparency issues related to the using of peoples names when canvassing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

About one of your posts

Could you tell me what you mean here [1], in particular the word "forced", when you wrote "This section was forced to be put into this article as part of the general censorship of his name debacle." Is this an on-Wikipedia discussion you are talking about? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes. I was notified through edit summaries (and further clarified by email) that at that time there was a general consensus among Oversight to not allow his name to be on Wikipedia. After his execution that ban expired.~Technophant (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems rather disturbing (to me anyway). It amounts to Wikipedia self-censoring itself because of the opinions or the restrictions of governments or governmental agencies. I wonder where else on Wikipedia this sort of thing has occurred? Did a similar thing happen regarding David Haines, I wonder? BTW, I do not think the "Haines' family requested that his abduction be kept a secret" claim in the article is correct - it was entirely a UK Foreign Office position. I recall media reports to that effect, but I will have to look into it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield Actually the "forced" (see edit history at David Cawthorne Haines) was due to an admin and the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance (or similar thread) not edit summaries or emails. The name redaction was as I stated. I requested several time to several forums pleading that Oversight release a statement as to why the name was being revdeleted and what's going on (when a decision is going to be made) however to the best of my knowledge no public statements were ever made. It's kind of like the NSA, you know they are listening, you know they can take actions, but if you ask them to explain what they are doing you won't ever get a reply. Very distasteful. Goes against what I thought Wikipedia was about. ~Technophant (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't realise you were editing the David Haines article at exactly the same time as I was! Sorry if I disrupted any of your edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WOW - reading the village pump contributions, it is disturbing that that false claim that the Haines' family had requested his name not be used in the news was being put forward by some editors as a reason to censor Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain that news of the abduction, and the family's increasing anger at the inactivity of the British government and the ongoing media ban, was in some sections of the media before the video release. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All of the discussion happened behind closed doors. I too couldn't find any source that claimed that the family didn't want it in the media. His widow went the press and didn't mention anything about it. Even after that happened the "censors" refused to budge from their position, nor did any members of the Oversight committee participate in the Village Pump discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield - I'm going to repost my email I sent to On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org:

I'm not sure why this matter isn't being debated openly. I would like to add this comment I posted to Jimbo's talk page to discussion:

I'm very concerned about the current trend. There seems to be not only reversions, revdeletes, and even blocks regarding this matter. It's one thing to have an open disagreement as to what should or shouldn't be in article space but it's a whole different game when the normal consensus building processes is subverted. The given reason that there's been a media blackout is that the family requested it so that hostage negotiations aren't affected. The subject's wife however isn't playing along with this however. She broke here silence and did a news interview, David Haines' Wife Speaks for First Time Since ISIL Video Released. She does NOT mention a request for this to be kept out of the media. I think this current trend is toxic to consensus building and article writing and is eroding the pillars that this project was founded on.

Out of the 20+ persons on the Wikipedia:Functionaries list I received no reply.

Later, on Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM I sent:

There's another issue with a different hostage, and American woman whom MeropeRiddle has requested not be named. See Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Another hostage.

Also, I was wonder if Oversight has released public statement regarding this issue? I'm also wondering what the stance is regarding inclusion of the name of the 4th Western hostage, a British subject. So far his name is included on 2014_ISIL_beheading_incidents#Alan_Henning.

Could I please be emailed old revisions of [[David Cawthorne Haines]]? I want to make sure that all usable user contributions are included and also since I copied the original Draft from Google cache there needs to be proper CC-BY attribution to original author(s).

I got one reply saying there's a discussion underway, comples issue, etc. Frustrating. I complained to WP:AUSC demanding transparency and a public statement but also didn't get a reply. ~Technophant (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the long delay. I have an interest in promoting transparency, and here is the reason why there was no public statement: I could not solicit a sufficient response and reach a consensus from my colleagues after forwarding your request to release any public statement.

Unfortunately I cannot act unilaterally because not everyone may be in agreement as to what to do, but I can only offer you advice in my own personal capacity. (1) The unfortunate death of the hostage is this case makes moot the need for suppression, and the suppression has since been lifted. (2) This case does raise a valid issue as to how to deal with similar future cases, and in the absence of any reference to specific outstanding (in the sense of unresolved) examples, the community should have a wider and fuller discussion as to how to approach such a situation in future.

Again I apologize for the protracted delay, and I hope this will address your concerns and have provided directions on the next step forward. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo It sounds like the committee didn't know what to do or couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. I did request that a page be started explaining any new policy of guideline decision and an summary of the David Cawthorne Haines incident. Just having an explanation on my talk page doesn't answer the lingering questions posed by the community in multiple discussion. ~Technophant (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. If you intend to start a wider policy discussion, do let me know on my talk page so that I can pass the message on for other OS members to participate in the discussion. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping involved editors @MeropeRiddle: and @Wnt:~Technophant (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because of the lack of interest in consensus, I can only look at the oversighters' behavior - I haven't looked as carefully as I ought, but I'm not aware of them doing anything with Peter Kassig. Unfortunately, [www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-issues-deadline-warning-american-hostage-peter-kassig-beheading-1471153 tomorrow], we're probably going to have another chance to see how the issue plays out, but I'll hope that they are through interfering. Their position on Haines was so over the top, beyond all other media even in Britain, that I really have no adequate theory to explain it. (At some point I should go over the "conspiracy" viewpoint vis-a-vis DA-Notice 5, but it's likely a snipe hunt) Wnt (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@technophant, I have been out of the loop for a bit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

SCW&ISIL sanctions

@Technophant: I recommend that you remove this notification at once. If you'll notice at the general sanctions log, Gregkaye has already been notified. Editors are never supposed to notify someone of the existence of these sanctions more than once, and certainly not for the sake of badgering editors. Please read the following:
Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
This comes from here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester thanks for catching that. I didn't check the log closely enough before I notified. The entry has been removed. I apologized here. I be more careful in the future.~Technophant (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester , as you know, when Technophant apolgized the text read as follows:

I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed. I apologize for the oversight.~Technophant (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit, placed late on Monday afternoon (UK time), states: "The duplicate entry has been removed" but gives no link to a removal. Following the edit Technophant would have been able to see that the offending banner remained in place.

Never-the-less, this editor was then involved in a large number of other edits during which I made no reply to the "I've been informed" text. It was then only at 01:56 (UK time) on the Tuesday morning that the offending text was removed following which, at 04:08 (UK time), it was re-issued.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See this request for clarification in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: do you want to explain the content of this thread? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Given your previous comments, here is heads-up over Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎#Talk page too long(318,000) -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR notification on Syrian Civil War articles

My friend, you are very much mistaken by notifying users on the sanctions (including me). You see, i was one of the people to propose those sanctions and i'm very much aware that non-administrators (like you) are not permitted to issue warnings and/or record them officially at the sanctions log. You are welcome to withdraw all your allegations for the 5 users (user:Legacypac, user:2.35.58.16, user:Olonia, user:Wheels of steel0, user:Greyshark09), you mistakenly logged in and delete the notifications logs as well. If you don't do it my friend, you might be accused of pretending being an administrator, which you are obviously not. I assume you are simply unfamiliar with the sanctions protocol for that matter - if you suspect someone to violate 1RR, you report to the administrator noticeboard, and not take the law into your hands. You were already warned on similar actions by administrator RGloucester. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 16:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion on my talk page about this. Obviously these are not warnings and any editor can place them. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: See this discussion on whether and when official warnings may be issued (interpretation of the ARBCOM guidelines).GreyShark (dibra) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

GreyShark Dougweller They are notifications, not warnings. With the recent clarification that they are not required before punitive actions being taken, and that because they are on the talk page and boldly unavoidable in the edit notice I'm not sure there's much reason to use them further, unless it is on articles that do not have the Syrian war edit notice.~Technophant (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fix signature

You need to fix your signature on this edit -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS I fixed it. Most likely I missed one of the ~'s. I wouldn't have minded if you would have fixed it yourself. It's an important log and needs to be clear.~Technophant (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why you had to fix it. It is one thing using {{unsigned2}} on talk pages, but when it comes to sanctions it is better that the i are dotted and the t are crossed by the editor who does the notification. The danger is otherwise we run into Sorites paradox. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS I've had this happen several times, and the last time it happened it was very clear in the changes review that I had used four ~'s. I don't know if it's a bug with my browser or an issue with Wikimedia not substituting the timestamp properly. If it keeps happening I'll ask at Technical to see if it is a general issue that others are experiencing.~Technophant (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the tilde you have at the front of the signature is confusing it, however there is also an option to have the signature placed semi automatically (using the [insert v] option directly below the edit page) see after the dash, ndash etc where says in bold "Sign your posts on talk pages:". If you try using that and the error occurs then talk to technical -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Concerning your question on ar. wiki

Hello, i saw your question on ar. wiki concerning the two armed men. These two are not members of the ISIS, as mentioned in the description, but rather members of the national resistance to the american forces in Iraq, that pre-dates the appearance of ISIS. For the future, you can always speak English to any user in ar. wiki, in case you don't know Arabic. Google translate is really horrible when it comes to translating full sentencs, some would have better luck understanding English than understanding the google trans. form of Arabic :) Anyway, almost every one in ar. wiki knows English, so you can gurantee you'll always be answerd. Best regards--باسم (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

باسم Thanks for the answer! Ar.wiki is hard to figure out. There doesn't seem to a AN/I type noticeboard there or much discussion in the Tea Room. I find it very difficult to cut and paste arabic, esp. with it wanting to be right to left. The image is being used at ISIL#as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the caption "Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq". It's a good photo. Quite striking. ~Technophant (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Genuine concern

I know that you don't know me but I would still like to make a genuine offer. Please take some time to consider various of your behaviours that other editors have described with meanings related to aggression. Life is complicated and we all have issues that we need to work through. I'm sure that, if there are people in your social network that you can help and from whom you can receive help. If by any chance you lack such contacts then, without prejudice of activities here, I would be happy to swap contacts and be involved in any suitable way. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) edited

Gregkaye I'm not sure what you mean by aggression. Have other users described my actions as aggressive? I've backed down from editing in general, trying to recover from this back surgery, which is finally starting to improve luckily. Pain does affect me and I try my best not to make my pain a problem for others, but it could happened. Can you please give me more input on what you mean?~Technophant (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Even on this page Legacypac has left a message, to which you have not replied, in which x/he talks of you acting vindictively towards him/her. See: User talk:Technophant#Please Retract
Worldedixor makes regular comment regarding your vindictive action.
In my personal situation I can list several instances of your questionable behaviour. In one instance, which was in relation to an AN/I that you placed against me that related to a discussion with which you had no involvement, you applied this amplification and manipulation of an existing rhetorical content. For independent comment PBS regarded it as a "breach of guidance ... as it invites someone to a lynching rather than giving a factual statement of attending a court case." You can go to WP:AN/I and check various linking methodologies through the use of the "what links here" function.

I have not seen your approach to be balanced or proportionate. It is really your responsibility to reflect on your editing behaviours and, for the general good of the community, I sincerely hope that you can do so.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant I have warned Gregkaye not to alter any changes I make to edits made by Gregkaye to the talk pages under the General Sanctions of the Syrian Civil War... . Please read User talk:Gregkaye#Warning and the relevant sections on my talk page (user talk:PBS#Even handed approach and colapsing etc).

Gregkaye has been a little selective of what I wrote on his talk page about your edits, and has recently linked another section as a heads up (here) which includes a link to this edit by you (dated 22 October 2014).

I did not take any action the edit(s) on 22 October 2014, because I did not see it and even if I had I might not have done anything because it was a less obvious breach then the one that Gregkaye made at a later date. As Gregkaye has raised the issue, I wish to explain in more detail.

Here are two of your posts:

Disruptive editing by User:Gregkaye

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here.~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

moved 11 minutes later (00:46, 22 October 2014) to a new place within an existing section, edited again at 00:51, 22 October 2014 (and as there was no intervening edits they count as one edit).

NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here. It is against WP:talk page guidelines. ~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the edit was unacceptable for exactly the same reason as I explained to Gregkaye why his similarly constructed edit was a breach of WP:TALK and WP:TALKNEW.

However although the move of the sentences meant that the second part of the edit no longer breached WP:TALKNEW, it did not place the edit within the guidelines, because the first sentence is phrased in such a way that it invites people to a lynching. If you wished to raise this issue on the talk page all that is need is a simple bland statement along the lines of your second sentence.

The second sentence is informative for both interested and disinterested editors, without breaching the WP:TALK guidelines. Although you probably ought not to advertise such things in article talk space, because what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue that you think is a breach of policy or guidance. Advertising the AN/I in article talk space tends to turn the AN/I discussion into a Wikidrama which ends up as a continuation of the content debate in another forum. At the end of which the disinterested editors tend to decide "A plague on both your houses" (Shakespeare) and so no consensus is reached and no action taken at AN/I.

Statements by Gregkaye justifying attack edits on other editors because (s)he thinks that (s)he has suffered similar attacks shows why breaches of the WP:TALK guidelines is in the long term counter productive, because it encourages a battle field mentality and makes the building of a consensus over content more difficult.

So, I hope you see why the edit quoted above above was counter productive and not the best way forward, but if you do not, and if you post things in the future that I think clearly breach talk page and/or other guidelines, I may take administrative action over such edits. If I do, then I am doing so as an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions, and, if the action that I take is to edit the talk page, do not change my edits. If you think an administrative action that I have made under the auspices of the general sections, is unreasonable then you may ask me to change it on my talk page. If I refuse and after you have read my explanation why I refuse, then you may of course appeal thorough the usual channels. -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Please strike all content by which you have contravened Wikipedia's guidelines in relation to your related lynching adverts.

I would further recommend that if you move an edit that you mark it as moved. Please also pay attention to time stamps used. The impression that you gave to me as a pinged editor was of the addition of yet another lynching text which also has the unjustifiable effect of an attempt to shut down related talk page debate.

I also want to ask, and please for once answer, in all your many encounters with Wikipedia's Administrative resolution systems and in response to accusations of vindictiveness by other editors have you at any point become aware that "what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue"? By this point I think I deserve honesty. It is needed if there is to be trust between us as editors. These issues should not be merely a matter of skirting rules so as to achieve the best results for a personal agenda but they are best as internal guides of good behaviour.

10:15, 3 November 2014 Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS Thank you for the your detailed explanation of Talk and AN guidelines. I knew that user issues shouldn't be on the Talk page but now have a much better grasp of how to handle any future issues. Perhaps it's best, in most situations, not mention AN/ANI on article talk pages unless there's a pressing need to do so. @Gregkaye I'll make the redactions you've requested but I feel that your motives are go beyond "genuine concern". I hope we can bury the hatchet and get back to work on things like the series of maps project that got put aside before this all happened.~Technophant (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant there has always been a genuine concern. I see the very fact, given your history of conflict, that you needed input on aggression to be a sign that you may not be totally in touch with issues here. I would like to think that you will act cordially, proportionately and fairly with all editors here. These are wider concerns. Again, you have never been involved in the jihadist debate and yet, in short order after the issue had entered into a consensus phase, you added this post dismissing the whole debate claiming, "I've seen this issue drone on and on". Its just another loaded, biased, manipulative content which, due to context and timing, is also incredibly disruptive. I take your point about mediation but, in the current context, why couldn't you just let things run their course? For whatever reason it has been you that has carried the "hatchet". You that has made use of belittling, sidelining, defamatory and manipulative tactics. My hope is still that you can face up to these issues and conduct yourself on the page in a neutral, more neutral manner. I have genuinely been trying to assume good faith with regard to your actions. If that fails what other conclusions do I have? Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, you are really taking this too far. You objections are laughable. I was asked to put some input in and I did. Just because things don't always go your way doesn't mean that everybody who doesn't agree with you is "vindictive". Your talk page shows a lot of different editors trying to either resolve things with you are asking you to back down. I'm going to have to do the latter in this case. ~Technophant (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant If you sincerely want to bury the hatchet as you describe that will be more than welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye yes I really do. I happened to notice your request on PBS's talkpage to do something about my comments (you should ping other users when complaining about them on admin talk page). I feel like you are doing anything and everything in your power to make things more difficult for me as an act of retribution. Please stop. You're just making yourself look bad. You could start by withdrawing your request.~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant I don't agree with the your presentation above. This is my mail on the talk page of PBS and your account, intentionally or not, can be read as being disingenuous with an incomplete description of an actual situation. As is apparent on the historical link provided above I had set up the pings and, amongst other content, stated "I would naturally ping the people mentioned but don't want to do that on your user page without permission." There is nothing in the content that I thought that editors might necessarily want to comment directly on but, as you know, the intended pings with full intention of notification. This I took as a clear example of you being disingenuous (but at the time of this text re-edit and, having listened to comment of our mutual friend and still trying to assume good faith, I have decided to consider this an oversight). I also noted that you had seen the edit yet have placed no comment.

Editor's can still read related comment on all above situations and come to their own conclusions relating to your comment: "You're just making yourself look bad". I regarded this as being characteristically prejudging and as being out of place. I cannot retract that I do have genuine concerns about the use of language like this and, to me, its use here leaves me with concerns as to whether you have taken the above content to heart. I have made an enquiry, in this case entitled "#Is this something collapsible or actionable?" in regard to your "alternate and dismissively worded proposal." I also presented a now edited comment that, "I regard this to be ~~bad faith and~~ disruptive while ~~showing no~~ (add: lacking) willingness to let things run their course." I certainly still think that, in the context, this has an unwarranted effect of disruption and my reasoning was to place this on an admin's talk page for nothing more than the reason to find out what action, if any, might be appropriate. If you think that no wrong has been done then you have nothing to worry about. 06:05, 4 November 2014, edited 06:21, 4 November 2014 and re edited after hopefully conciliatory discussion with P123ct1 Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, you shut me out of the conversation on your talk page. I was trying to explain myself. If you take a chance later to re-read what was said the message is that User:P123ct1 and I respect you and want to keep the conversation going so we can at least be on good terms when discussing editing matters.~Technophant (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Just to be clear, this was the state of dialogue on my page at the time of your last edit above in which you started with your instructions regarding the resolution of a misedit of yours; continued with your cryptic content of a pain related "riddle" that you seemed unwilling to explain; which you then claimed was related to my editing of the lead despite the fact that the conversation had concerned Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which is validated both by your initial comments and by another editors comment part way through; you then proceeded with content that was totally inappropriate in the context of a productive conversation that I had been holding with someone else, namely you came out with a whole range of non-specific allegations. This is phenomenally unhelpful with regard to potential resolution. Show diffs. Raise clear issues that can be reacted to accordingly. I finished with the question as to whether you had P123ct1's permission to share the information that you shared and whether it was in anyone else's interest other than your own to share it. I am still curious for an answer. I have now moved the content of this roller coaster of an interjection to Misrepresentations 2 the last content on my talk page to which you contributed to. Again was another thread that someone else had started that you seem to have felt at liberty to join. I am more than happy to discuss various matters but would prefer to do it without swings in the conversation, riddles, potential breaches of confidence and vague presentation of views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Other people's talk page edits

Extended content

Please don't amend my edits as you did here Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of your wp:hounding! I'm asking any uninvolved admin to put a FORMAL ~~temporary~~ WP:IBAN on Gregkaye.~Technophant (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And here. which also served to make the section disappear. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, given the exchanges between yourself and Gregkaye today, you must have made this edit either to be provocative, or because your judgement is too poor to realise that it would be provocative.

Now with my administrators hat on. Enough! I am going to revert the edit. You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or User talk:Gregkaye for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum. You need time contemplate your actions, at the moment you are heading for a block or a ban. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you come back in 24 hours and continue where you will leave off now, I will take further administrative actions. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify one sentence: "[During the 24 hour ban] you are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum". -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS - are you addressing me or Gregkaye? Putting restrictions on me makes no sense. I haven't disrupted the Project or any any attacked, provoked, or retaliated. ~Technophant (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You! See my comments above about this edit. At the best of times it is not a good idea to refactor comments by those where good faith may be lacking. To do it in the middle of a dispute that has dragged in two administrators is a clear breach of either good faith or common sense. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I merely re-sized the image that was the topic of the debate. This in now way violates the spirit or letter of the law. Telling me to stop editing under Syrian Civil War sanctions hours after announcing the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Syrian Civil War is not acting in good faith, esp. since I in no way disrupted the project pages or project members. I'm going on sabitical and not going to not have internet access for several days to a week. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail when I return. My faith in Wikimedia's control over admin misconduct is once again shattered. ~Technophant (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As you says that you are away long sabbatical/few days to a week, the topic ban and ban on discussing Gregkaye's behaviour in any Wikipedia forum, is no longer serving the useful purpose of defusing tension so I am lifting it. -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversal of deleted selected comments relevant to unblock requests

Technophant has again applied for an unblock, and at the time I write this has not been answered. In the same series of edits as the unblock request, Technophant has been refactoring this talk page to selectively remove or collapse comments by other users that are pertinent to the block (see here), and because other editors commenting on this page have commented on the deleted comment, I am going to revert those removals under WP:REMOVED "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices". Technophant if you revert my revert I will block your access to this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed Technophant's talk page access.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant: While this talk page is unavailable to you and if the current block appeal fails, if wish to appeal the block further you can email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. -- PBS (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for renewed sockpuppetry. 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) 02:37, 10 November 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:

Now that I'm back from my Wikibreak I'm rather surprised to find this block notice. No evasion of topic ban was performed or intended. Topic was Syrian Civil War/ISIL and the draft project page is my creation and I'm in no way limited or blocked from this area. This is not sock puppetry. I just didn't have time to ~~log out~~ log in. No policy or guideline broken. ~Technophant (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force is clearly a conflict-related page so it was covered by your ban. Since there is no defect in the reason for User:Kww's block you should now be moving toward the steps of WP:GAB. That's the part where you should explain how you will act differently in the future. The four numbered points below by PBS appear to be correct. If you actually see no problem with your edit of a conflict-related page at 20:57 November 9 with an IP while your account was under a ban from such edits, imposed at 18:17 on November 9 by User:PBS, and you believe you are here due to biased actions by admins then I'm not sure how we get started on an unblock negotiation. My suggestion would be that you review the sequence of events carefully and see if you can come up with a more persuasive unblock request, one that is more believable given the diffs that we can all see. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 15 November 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.

Unblock redux

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:

First of all the 24 hour "cooldown" topic ban was unfairly placed on both myself and User:Gregkaye. Gregkaye was clearly hounding me and my request for assistance on User:Anna Frodesiak's talk page were all appropriate. Second, the edit summary I hastily left here (simply changing a hard redirect to a soft redirect) was meant to say "trying to help, techno". I had purposfully logged out to prevent accidental editing. My planned (but unwanted) trip to a medical facility was going to be a long one and I wanted this new proposed WikiProject (announced here) to adopted and furthered by other interested Wikipedians. I wasn't purposefully evading the ill-conceived topic ban however I can see how it could have been taken that way. I honestly didn't even think of it as such as it is a trivial edit that changed nothing of importance. The 24 hour topic ban was lifted a few hours after it was imposed. An indefinite (infinite) BLOCK in response to a de minimis transgression is way overblown. It doesn't serve any purpose except to increase KWW's dopamine levels. A 5 day block has already been imposed and I think I can safely resume editing without causing disruption.~Technophant (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Most importantly the topic ban was lifted by PBS prior to the IP comment! See [2]. I thought this was the case, however when I was trying to compare the UTC timestamps to the CST timestamps the system was giving me it didn't seem that this was the case (even though I remember it to be). Again, bogus block, abuse of admin tools and a brand new reason to resume the RFC/U I threatened KWW with the last time he got shitty with me (see my talk archive).~Technophant (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't explain this edit summary. PhilKnight (talk) 02:30, 16 November 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.

Just to be clear, the reason for the block is not a topic ban violation, it's for logging out and pretending not to be Technophant. It's indefinite because it is clear to me that Technophant has no intention of abiding by any restrictions that are placed upon him or editing within the confines laid out in WP:ILLEGIT. The fact that we are back here dealing with precisely the same issues as he was blocked for the last time is evidence of his inability to behave appropriately.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 16 November 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:

PhilKnight&Kww. I can't explain this edit either. I live in the Budget Suites of America. There's over 200 units with some of those units having up to 6 adults living in them sharing a single shared Time Warner Cable internet connection. Perhaps one of the hundreds of users of this "shared machine" was as frustrated as I am about being blocked from editing. I often get very frustrated with it. I just did a Speedtest.net, results 1.4Mbits/s download and 0.095Mb/sec upload with 10% packet loss. In case you can't interpret these results I'l;l do it for you — I have a horrible internet connection not good enough for streaming, Skype, or even VOIP. This poor internet connection likely explains some of the odd behavior I've been having such as edit conflicting myself screwed up ~~ signatures. If being poor is against PAG then I'm guilty. If I were serious about Socking I would use internet cafes and VPN Tunnels–however I'm both A)poor and B)essentially home-bound. The IP in question is a named "sockpuppet of Technophant" so if I really was intending to evade my redickulous 24hour topic ban why would i use an ip that is already identified as my own? I may be a lot of things, however stupid isn't one of them. ~Technophant (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Taking into account the whole editing history of the IP address, the editing history of this account, and your comments in discussion on this page during the block, I find your explanation highly unconvincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 17 November 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.

Unblock comments

@KWW: I've grown tired of your abuse of admin tools and status. Please AGF. ~Technophant (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:

During your 24 hour ban you complained it prohibited you from editing "Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force", so at the time you believed the page to be under the ban. Now you self declare that it was not!
You write "This is not sock puppetry." but the edit comment by the IP address states "try to help techno" that comment is deceptive and intended to pretend that you were not editing as the IP address 71.40.3.92 (something you have now admitted that you did), it is not the sort of edit history comment that an editor makes if they are accidentally logged out.
It is also notable that in all these months (since your last blocking for using IP addresses in July 2014)) not once have you accidentally edited under an IP address, then while under a 24 hour ban you claim you accidentally did so.
Your sockpuppet behaviour and your unblock request shows that no breach of AGF took place; and your comment to Kww shows that you have no contrition for what you did.

The only reason I have not personally turned down your appeal is that I think it will be better if a third administrator does that. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

KWW childish abuse? Before PBS was the problem admin. You socked. You got caught. The Irony is PBS reversed their topic ban. Two hours before the IP sock showed up to help you. Your improper RFCU that you tried to pass off to another unwilling user brought attention to you and the sock puppetry was discovered. Above you yourself suggest that said topic ban would prevent you from editing that wikiproject and then here at your unblock request you take a different stance. Why would any reasonable admin unblock you when you want take ownership for your own activity and you haven't done anything to address your behavior? You deny wrong doing but all evidence suggests otherwise. What I would propose to you is that you agree to a topic ban on ISIL related topics, you admit your wrong doing, and you ensure them that you will not not do that again in exchange for removal of this indef block.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, you say that I was clearly hounding you. Do you honestly, sincerely believe that? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Above technophant offers that the edit that got his ban happened an hour after being unblocked. [3] here is that edit. Here is the unblock[4]. Do correct me if I'm wrong someone but it does seem that this happened more than an hour before they were unblocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:It's not clear to me but it seems that you are suggesting impropriety of some sort on the part of at least one of the admins here. I would like to ask if that is what you are suggesting? If so that is that is a very serious allegation and if you like, I or someone else can take this to ANI or the appropriate location of your choosing for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho - From one disabled Wikipedian to another, I'm having an hard time seeing your fascination with my plight. I know these are strong accusations and they are not ones made without careful consideration. I've had almost a week to "cool off" re my bogus 24 hour TBAN. I was shocked after logging in after my hospital stay to see that I was blocked! I wish I hadn't logged in last night and just went to sleep...~Technophant (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no fascination with your plight. You don't seem to understand your plight. I'm trying to help you with that. You really aren't helping yourself with some of your actions here. As far as your accusations against some of the ADMINS, they are very serious, and if you wish them to be reviewed in the appropriate venue that is with in your right. Since you are blocked I or another person here can help you. By help you I mean that we can take your complaint there for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho - Thank your for your offer. Q: have you ever been blocked before? It's majorly disruptive. I have a very important role here at enwiki and being limited to only my talk page is very very very very very (very) wrong. Whether I made the comment 1 hour before or after I was unblocked; what difference does it make at this point?! I'm confused about it myself. I did not intend to edit against TBAN, in the rush to get ready to be admitted to the hospital I simply didn't bother to log in and that isn't against the rules as far as I know. KWW has lost his humanity and should surrender his sysop flag (or just agree to a informal IBAN). I've been told that he is a "very respected admin" but I fail to see what (if anything) is respectable in his behaviour. :-/ ~Technophant (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that an otherwise intelligent editor here can believe they can get away with such deception. The edit summaries are plain:

20:57, November 9, 2014: Lie 1. IP tries to pretend to be someone helping techno:

("try to help techno")

02:37, November 10, 2014: Kww then blocks Technophant and notifies them:

(Blocked again)

03:19, November 10, 2014: Kww blocks IP:

(blocked for block evasion)

06:55, November 15, 2014: Lie 2. IP (whom we know is Technophant) then lies and removes an ipsock tag:

("who's Techophant?")

09:01, November 15, 2014: User:PBS calls it "deceptive" (see above under point 2):

(PBS's comments)

21:55, November 15, 2014: Lie 3. Technophant admits the IP was him and claims a comma was missing from the edit summary:

("try to help, techno"):

No matter how you cut it, deception occurred THREE TIMES, with the IP edits just like the last incident of deliberately logging out to make a questionable edit. We have a pattern here. Even if there had been no topic ban and evasion to edit it using an IP, logging out deliberately to make IP edits (in the same area) is not usually allowed. You should use your account.

Also, none of Technophant's comments above (see also contribution history for deleted comments above) indicate anything more than blaming others for his problems. Any improvement only occurs when under threat of a block or ban, and such behavior cannot be tolerated. There is nothing to indicate that this user is capable of self-policing their behavior, since they see no need to do so because "it's everyone else's fault"....

The block should be maintained and talk page access blocked. Let's stop the disruption here and get back to editing. They can appeal the block in a year. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to interject there Brangifer. It is possible that this IP is for a longterm stay hotel that has 200 units and that 30 students from 8-18 use it. It is possible that an individual other than Technophant removed that and that the person who removed it has no clue whom technophant is. It's possible and reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is neither "possible or reasonable". What are the chances that someone else, purely by chance, is staying at the same hotel, editing from the same IP, and following along with this whole drama? Let's just apply Occam's razor here, shave/slice away such a nonsensical idea, and admit the most likely person doing it was Technophant, especially since he actually admits it! Since he admits it, why are you playing devil's advocate? It's a bit late to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Bullshitrangifer" You are now banned from editing my userpage so suck on this - you're wrong. Read my new unblock reason. It is so sad and humiliating to admit the sad truth behind the "Great Technophant" is just a sad/sick old man with genius IQ and an over-abundance of good faith. I'm dedicated to the idea of trying to have my work on Wikipedia be my sole lasting legacy that I leave the world.~Technophant (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless they admitted that they made that specific edit I don't think theres a way to know. If they did I hope they would just admit it. While it seems these 30 or so students do not edit wikipedia it's not clear how many of them read wikipedia. Any one of those could have responded to the alert that the IP would have received. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

-Serialjoepsycho-, I'm beginning to wonder if we are talking about different edits. What is the diff for the one you're referring to? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If so I do apologise but I thought you were talking to this[5]. Unless Technophant has admitted to that edit then it's plausible that it was done by an uninvolved party that doesn't know what is going on. They have admitted this edit was there's and I have missed in which case I apologise again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, if I really stretch. Since Technophant had admitted previous edits with that IP were his, and since all the edits, including and since July 24, 2014, are consistent with his interests and activities here, I see no reason to think otherwise, but it's not totally impossible.

It would be odd for an uninvolved IP editor there to access the talk page, but make no other edits. There are lots of things IP users often don't know: (1) their own IP number; (2) that someone else has edited Wikipedia with their IP; (3) that they even have a talk page here; (4) much less its location here. It takes lots of prior knowledge to do all that. It's far more plausible to believe that Technophant made this comment in an effort to deceive, something we know him to do, considering that two previous edits at Wikipedia by that IP were probably him, and all subsequent edits as well. Once an editor like him has proven that we should not AGF in their defensive comments, everything unravels and we discover lots more evidence of devious behavior. I've seen this happen many times with other editors who engage in sockpuppetry. That's why I hate sockpuppetry. It destroys the open and trustful atmosphere here.

Since we have plenty of reason not to AGF, I'll leave my comment above as it is, especially after the nice "FU Brangifer" I got! There would be no substantial difference anyway. He's still deceptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong. It's just as plausible that they did make that edit. And if they did I wish they would simply admit to it.However that's not ultimately important. This deceptive edit is the same as the one that got them indeffed in the first place. To get unblocked I do think they will have to convince the admins they are of no risk for further disruption. That's really going to take some convincing on their part because of their previous actions. From my non-admin POV I do think that they would have to agree to a indef syrian civil war topic ban (broadly interpreted) since this subject is what seems to me to have lead to this. They would need to demonstrate they understand that their socking is unacceptable to the wikipedia community, and since they show the competence of a new user I think they show an effort to learn and conform to wikipedia policy such as going to the teahouse or adopt-a-user. This of course is my non-admin POV. But the block here is not a punishment. An indef block is not permanent. It could theoretically last 5 minutes or even 10 years. Simply put it's as long as it needs to be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant you really need to read some of the stuff being said down here. You stand up their saying that you made the edit that got you banned here more than an hour after you were unblocked, however the diffs I provide show that you made the edit more than an hour before you were unblocked. I honestly do not feel that you have any chance of being unblocked if you keep evading the responsibility for your actions. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We cannot AGF in Technophant. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer/Brangifer I asked in an edit summary for an IBAN from this professional physical therapist/deadly character assassin. Seriously dude, you're a THERAPIST! You supposedly heal ppl, however the only thing I've seen you do here is use your expertise in human anatomy and psychology to harm. You are also a member of a professional certifying organization, ergo you need to declare your COI regarding articles such as acupuncture and chiropractic. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that you have professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor). Please do not EVER interact with User:Technophant again or any of his affiliated pages (broadly construed). Pushing past this firm and non-negotiable boundry WILL lead to sanctions.~Technophant (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll reply to this sad and unsuccessful attempt at outing/sleuthing/poisoning the well. I am retired, but I did work as a PT, and that is no secret, but I have no idea what the "certifying" bit is about. I don't have any COI or "professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor)." That's just BS. I generally ignore the PT articles, and any of the few edits I have ever made to them are welcome to be examined. If they are not neutral or wrong, "just fix it". That's what we do here.

Otherwise, Techno has no right to "ban" anyone who civilly responds to their comments or otherwise uses their talk page for its intended purpose. Users do not own their talk pages. They do have some rights, but those rights do not extend so far that they are allowed to do anything which inhibits the purpose of the talk page. It is for communication, including what they may consider unwelcome communication. All the deletions and constant refactoring they have done has also messed things up. Don't do it.

Technophant's talk page access is now blocked, and I don't expect any reply. In fact, it would be best for them to just be silent and never again try to out or attack another editor for their supposed affiliations. That is considered a personal attack here. All the nasty and foul edit summaries left by Technophant speak for themselves. I won't expound on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant you will not get better advise over this block than that given to you by Serialjoepsycho in this section (at 04:06, 16 November 2014). Of course the question has to be asked: Given that you are banned from one area already, would an unblock and an additional ban simply move you on to edit in another area of Wikipedia unrepentant and ready to behave the same way with a new group of editors? -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I share the same concerns. After all this time, multiple blocks, and lots of controversies, there is nothing to indicate any change of heart or admission of own culpability, so I have no hopes for a good future here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a response to the last response you gave me Technophant. No I've not been banned before but it's not my first rodeo either. I've seen plenty of people get banned. Above in one of the other threads you make the acknowledgement that the topic ban placed by on you by PBS would prevent you from editing in the group on the syrian civil war that you created. You have admitted that you logged out to your IP and that you made an edit from that IP to that group. This is a violation of that topic ban. This also is considered sock puppetry. That's why it matters if it happened an hour before. The wikipedia community has made their position clear on acts of sockpuppetry. Look you are mad. Honestly I think you're wrong but I can understand why you are mad. But stop being mad for a minute. KWW and PBS have both responded here. They aren't here to make you mad. They are here looking to see if you understand why this blocked happened and if you are taking the appropriate action to ensure that it won't happen again. This is my POV though and if I'm wrong I hope they will speak up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disturbing email

I have received a disturbing email from Technophant, sent by using my email contact here:

Subject: YOU SICKO

"I should have known that you couldn't pass up on apparent opp. to "finish me off". Your expressed hobby seems to be character assassination. My "friend" agrees with that you are a special breed of horrible person."

I request that an admin remove Technophant's ability to misuse email contacts here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Technophant, note that you can still e-mail the arbitration committee as detailed at WP:BASC, as PBS says above. But your first port of call for requesting unblock should be WP:UTRS. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for renewed sockpuppetry. 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) 02:37, 10 November 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:

Now that I'm back from my Wikibreak I'm rather surprised to find this block notice. No evasion of topic ban was performed or intended. Topic was Syrian Civil War/ISIL and the draft project page is my creation and I'm in no way limited or blocked from this area. This is not sock puppetry. I just didn't have time to ~~log out~~ log in. No policy or guideline broken. ~Technophant (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force is clearly a conflict-related page so it was covered by your ban. Since there is no defect in the reason for User:Kww's block you should now be moving toward the steps of WP:GAB. That's the part where you should explain how you will act differently in the future. The four numbered points below by PBS appear to be correct. If you actually see no problem with your edit of a conflict-related page at 20:57 November 9 with an IP while your account was under a ban from such edits, imposed at 18:17 on November 9 by User:PBS, and you believe you are here due to biased actions by admins then I'm not sure how we get started on an unblock negotiation. My suggestion would be that you review the sequence of events carefully and see if you can come up with a more persuasive unblock request, one that is more believable given the diffs that we can all see. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 15 November 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.

Unblock redux

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:

First of all the 24 hour "cooldown" topic ban was unfairly placed on both myself and User:Gregkaye. Gregkaye was clearly hounding me and my request for assistance on User:Anna Frodesiak's talk page were all appropriate. Second, the edit summary I hastily left here (simply changing a hard redirect to a soft redirect) was meant to say "trying to help, techno". I had purposfully logged out to prevent accidental editing. My planned (but unwanted) trip to a medical facility was going to be a long one and I wanted this new proposed WikiProject (announced here) to adopted and furthered by other interested Wikipedians. I wasn't purposefully evading the ill-conceived topic ban however I can see how it could have been taken that way. I honestly didn't even think of it as such as it is a trivial edit that changed nothing of importance. The 24 hour topic ban was lifted a few hours after it was imposed. An indefinite (infinite) BLOCK in response to a de minimis transgression is way overblown. It doesn't serve any purpose except to increase KWW's dopamine levels. A 5 day block has already been imposed and I think I can safely resume editing without causing disruption.~Technophant (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Most importantly the topic ban was lifted by PBS prior to the IP comment! See [6]. I thought this was the case, however when I was trying to compare the UTC timestamps to the CST timestamps the system was giving me it didn't seem that this was the case (even though I remember it to be). Again, bogus block, abuse of admin tools and a brand new reason to resume the RFC/U I threatened KWW with the last time he got shitty with me (see my talk archive).~Technophant (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request doesn't explain this edit summary. PhilKnight (talk) 02:30, 16 November 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.

Just to be clear, the reason for the block is not a topic ban violation, it's for logging out and pretending not to be Technophant. It's indefinite because it is clear to me that Technophant has no intention of abiding by any restrictions that are placed upon him or editing within the confines laid out in WP:ILLEGIT. The fact that we are back here dealing with precisely the same issues as he was blocked for the last time is evidence of his inability to behave appropriately.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 16 November 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:

PhilKnight&Kww. I can't explain this edit either. I live in the Budget Suites of America. There's over 200 units with some of those units having up to 6 adults living in them sharing a single shared Time Warner Cable internet connection. Perhaps one of the hundreds of users of this "shared machine" was as frustrated as I am about being blocked from editing. I often get very frustrated with it. I just did a Speedtest.net, results 1.4Mbits/s download and 0.095Mb/sec upload with 10% packet loss. In case you can't interpret these results I'l;l do it for you — I have a horrible internet connection not good enough for streaming, Skype, or even VOIP. This poor internet connection likely explains some of the odd behavior I've been having such as edit conflicting myself screwed up ~~ signatures. If being poor is against PAG then I'm guilty. If I were serious about Socking I would use internet cafes and VPN Tunnels–however I'm both A)poor and B)essentially home-bound. The IP in question is a named "sockpuppet of Technophant" so if I really was intending to evade my redickulous 24hour topic ban why would i use an ip that is already identified as my own? I may be a lot of things, however stupid isn't one of them. ~Technophant (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Taking into account the whole editing history of the IP address, the editing history of this account, and your comments in discussion on this page during the block, I find your explanation highly unconvincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 17 November 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.

Unblock comments

@KWW: I've grown tired of your abuse of admin tools and status. Please AGF. ~Technophant (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:

During your 24 hour ban you complained it prohibited you from editing "Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force", so at the time you believed the page to be under the ban. Now you self declare that it was not!
You write "This is not sock puppetry." but the edit comment by the IP address states "try to help techno" that comment is deceptive and intended to pretend that you were not editing as the IP address 71.40.3.92 (something you have now admitted that you did), it is not the sort of edit history comment that an editor makes if they are accidentally logged out.
It is also notable that in all these months (since your last blocking for using IP addresses in July 2014)) not once have you accidentally edited under an IP address, then while under a 24 hour ban you claim you accidentally did so.
Your sockpuppet behaviour and your unblock request shows that no breach of AGF took place; and your comment to Kww shows that you have no contrition for what you did.

The only reason I have not personally turned down your appeal is that I think it will be better if a third administrator does that. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

KWW childish abuse? Before PBS was the problem admin. You socked. You got caught. The Irony is PBS reversed their topic ban. Two hours before the IP sock showed up to help you. Your improper RFCU that you tried to pass off to another unwilling user brought attention to you and the sock puppetry was discovered. Above you yourself suggest that said topic ban would prevent you from editing that wikiproject and then here at your unblock request you take a different stance. Why would any reasonable admin unblock you when you want take ownership for your own activity and you haven't done anything to address your behavior? You deny wrong doing but all evidence suggests otherwise. What I would propose to you is that you agree to a topic ban on ISIL related topics, you admit your wrong doing, and you ensure them that you will not not do that again in exchange for removal of this indef block.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, you say that I was clearly hounding you. Do you honestly, sincerely believe that? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Above technophant offers that the edit that got his ban happened an hour after being unblocked. [7] here is that edit. Here is the unblock[8]. Do correct me if I'm wrong someone but it does seem that this happened more than an hour before they were unblocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:It's not clear to me but it seems that you are suggesting impropriety of some sort on the part of at least one of the admins here. I would like to ask if that is what you are suggesting? If so that is that is a very serious allegation and if you like, I or someone else can take this to ANI or the appropriate location of your choosing for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho - From one disabled Wikipedian to another, I'm having an hard time seeing your fascination with my plight. I know these are strong accusations and they are not ones made without careful consideration. I've had almost a week to "cool off" re my bogus 24 hour TBAN. I was shocked after logging in after my hospital stay to see that I was blocked! I wish I hadn't logged in last night and just went to sleep...~Technophant (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no fascination with your plight. You don't seem to understand your plight. I'm trying to help you with that. You really aren't helping yourself with some of your actions here. As far as your accusations against some of the ADMINS, they are very serious, and if you wish them to be reviewed in the appropriate venue that is with in your right. Since you are blocked I or another person here can help you. By help you I mean that we can take your complaint there for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho - Thank your for your offer. Q: have you ever been blocked before? It's majorly disruptive. I have a very important role here at enwiki and being limited to only my talk page is very very very very very (very) wrong. Whether I made the comment 1 hour before or after I was unblocked; what difference does it make at this point?! I'm confused about it myself. I did not intend to edit against TBAN, in the rush to get ready to be admitted to the hospital I simply didn't bother to log in and that isn't against the rules as far as I know. KWW has lost his humanity and should surrender his sysop flag (or just agree to a informal IBAN). I've been told that he is a "very respected admin" but I fail to see what (if anything) is respectable in his behaviour. :-/ ~Technophant (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that an otherwise intelligent editor here can believe they can get away with such deception. The edit summaries are plain:

20:57, November 9, 2014: Lie 1. IP tries to pretend to be someone helping techno:

("try to help techno")

02:37, November 10, 2014: Kww then blocks Technophant and notifies them:

(Blocked again)

03:19, November 10, 2014: Kww blocks IP:

(blocked for block evasion)

06:55, November 15, 2014: Lie 2. IP (whom we know is Technophant) then lies and removes an ipsock tag:

("who's Techophant?")

09:01, November 15, 2014: User:PBS calls it "deceptive" (see above under point 2):

(PBS's comments)

21:55, November 15, 2014: Lie 3. Technophant admits the IP was him and claims a comma was missing from the edit summary:

("try to help, techno"):

No matter how you cut it, deception occurred THREE TIMES, with the IP edits just like the last incident of deliberately logging out to make a questionable edit. We have a pattern here. Even if there had been no topic ban and evasion to edit it using an IP, logging out deliberately to make IP edits (in the same area) is not usually allowed. You should use your account.

Also, none of Technophant's comments above (see also contribution history for deleted comments above) indicate anything more than blaming others for his problems. Any improvement only occurs when under threat of a block or ban, and such behavior cannot be tolerated. There is nothing to indicate that this user is capable of self-policing their behavior, since they see no need to do so because "it's everyone else's fault"....

The block should be maintained and talk page access blocked. Let's stop the disruption here and get back to editing. They can appeal the block in a year. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to interject there Brangifer. It is possible that this IP is for a longterm stay hotel that has 200 units and that 30 students from 8-18 use it. It is possible that an individual other than Technophant removed that and that the person who removed it has no clue whom technophant is. It's possible and reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is neither "possible or reasonable". What are the chances that someone else, purely by chance, is staying at the same hotel, editing from the same IP, and following along with this whole drama? Let's just apply Occam's razor here, shave/slice away such a nonsensical idea, and admit the most likely person doing it was Technophant, especially since he actually admits it! Since he admits it, why are you playing devil's advocate? It's a bit late to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Bullshitrangifer" You are now banned from editing my userpage so suck on this - you're wrong. Read my new unblock reason. It is so sad and humiliating to admit the sad truth behind the "Great Technophant" is just a sad/sick old man with genius IQ and an over-abundance of good faith. I'm dedicated to the idea of trying to have my work on Wikipedia be my sole lasting legacy that I leave the world.~Technophant (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless they admitted that they made that specific edit I don't think theres a way to know. If they did I hope they would just admit it. While it seems these 30 or so students do not edit wikipedia it's not clear how many of them read wikipedia. Any one of those could have responded to the alert that the IP would have received. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

-Serialjoepsycho-, I'm beginning to wonder if we are talking about different edits. What is the diff for the one you're referring to? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If so I do apologise but I thought you were talking to this[9]. Unless Technophant has admitted to that edit then it's plausible that it was done by an uninvolved party that doesn't know what is going on. They have admitted this edit was there's and I have missed in which case I apologise again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, if I really stretch. Since Technophant had admitted previous edits with that IP were his, and since all the edits, including and since July 24, 2014, are consistent with his interests and activities here, I see no reason to think otherwise, but it's not totally impossible.

It would be odd for an uninvolved IP editor there to access the talk page, but make no other edits. There are lots of things IP users often don't know: (1) their own IP number; (2) that someone else has edited Wikipedia with their IP; (3) that they even have a talk page here; (4) much less its location here. It takes lots of prior knowledge to do all that. It's far more plausible to believe that Technophant made this comment in an effort to deceive, something we know him to do, considering that two previous edits at Wikipedia by that IP were probably him, and all subsequent edits as well. Once an editor like him has proven that we should not AGF in their defensive comments, everything unravels and we discover lots more evidence of devious behavior. I've seen this happen many times with other editors who engage in sockpuppetry. That's why I hate sockpuppetry. It destroys the open and trustful atmosphere here.

Since we have plenty of reason not to AGF, I'll leave my comment above as it is, especially after the nice "FU Brangifer" I got! There would be no substantial difference anyway. He's still deceptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong. It's just as plausible that they did make that edit. And if they did I wish they would simply admit to it.However that's not ultimately important. This deceptive edit is the same as the one that got them indeffed in the first place. To get unblocked I do think they will have to convince the admins they are of no risk for further disruption. That's really going to take some convincing on their part because of their previous actions. From my non-admin POV I do think that they would have to agree to a indef syrian civil war topic ban (broadly interpreted) since this subject is what seems to me to have lead to this. They would need to demonstrate they understand that their socking is unacceptable to the wikipedia community, and since they show the competence of a new user I think they show an effort to learn and conform to wikipedia policy such as going to the teahouse or adopt-a-user. This of course is my non-admin POV. But the block here is not a punishment. An indef block is not permanent. It could theoretically last 5 minutes or even 10 years. Simply put it's as long as it needs to be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant you really need to read some of the stuff being said down here. You stand up their saying that you made the edit that got you banned here more than an hour after you were unblocked, however the diffs I provide show that you made the edit more than an hour before you were unblocked. I honestly do not feel that you have any chance of being unblocked if you keep evading the responsibility for your actions. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We cannot AGF in Technophant. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer/Brangifer I asked in an edit summary for an IBAN from this professional physical therapist/deadly character assassin. Seriously dude, you're a THERAPIST! You supposedly heal ppl, however the only thing I've seen you do here is use your expertise in human anatomy and psychology to harm. You are also a member of a professional certifying organization, ergo you need to declare your COI regarding articles such as acupuncture and chiropractic. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that you have professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor). Please do not EVER interact with User:Technophant again or any of his affiliated pages (broadly construed). Pushing past this firm and non-negotiable boundry WILL lead to sanctions.~Technophant (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll reply to this sad and unsuccessful attempt at outing/sleuthing/poisoning the well. I am retired, but I did work as a PT, and that is no secret, but I have no idea what the "certifying" bit is about. I don't have any COI or "professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor)." That's just BS. I generally ignore the PT articles, and any of the few edits I have ever made to them are welcome to be examined. If they are not neutral or wrong, "just fix it". That's what we do here.

Otherwise, Techno has no right to "ban" anyone who civilly responds to their comments or otherwise uses their talk page for its intended purpose. Users do not own their talk pages. They do have some rights, but those rights do not extend so far that they are allowed to do anything which inhibits the purpose of the talk page. It is for communication, including what they may consider unwelcome communication. All the deletions and constant refactoring they have done has also messed things up. Don't do it.

Technophant's talk page access is now blocked, and I don't expect any reply. In fact, it would be best for them to just be silent and never again try to out or attack another editor for their supposed affiliations. That is considered a personal attack here. All the nasty and foul edit summaries left by Technophant speak for themselves. I won't expound on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant you will not get better advise over this block than that given to you by Serialjoepsycho in this section (at 04:06, 16 November 2014). Of course the question has to be asked: Given that you are banned from one area already, would an unblock and an additional ban simply move you on to edit in another area of Wikipedia unrepentant and ready to behave the same way with a new group of editors? -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I share the same concerns. After all this time, multiple blocks, and lots of controversies, there is nothing to indicate any change of heart or admission of own culpability, so I have no hopes for a good future here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a response to the last response you gave me Technophant. No I've not been banned before but it's not my first rodeo either. I've seen plenty of people get banned. Above in one of the other threads you make the acknowledgement that the topic ban placed by on you by PBS would prevent you from editing in the group on the syrian civil war that you created. You have admitted that you logged out to your IP and that you made an edit from that IP to that group. This is a violation of that topic ban. This also is considered sock puppetry. That's why it matters if it happened an hour before. The wikipedia community has made their position clear on acts of sockpuppetry. Look you are mad. Honestly I think you're wrong but I can understand why you are mad. But stop being mad for a minute. KWW and PBS have both responded here. They aren't here to make you mad. They are here looking to see if you understand why this blocked happened and if you are taking the appropriate action to ensure that it won't happen again. This is my POV though and if I'm wrong I hope they will speak up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disturbing email

I have received a disturbing email from Technophant, sent by using my email contact here:

Subject: YOU SICKO

"I should have known that you couldn't pass up on apparent opp. to "finish me off". Your expressed hobby seems to be character assassination. My "friend" agrees with that you are a special breed of horrible person."

I request that an admin remove Technophant's ability to misuse email contacts here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Technophant, note that you can still e-mail the arbitration committee as detailed at WP:BASC, as PBS says above. But your first port of call for requesting unblock should be WP:UTRS. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

UTRS appeal #12510

Just leaving a quick note mentioning that I have replied to Technophant's UTRS ticket, declining to unblock, but proposing that he resubmit a ticket in six months per the standard offer, and that his unblock request can be discussed at AN then. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)