Technophant (talk | contribs) →Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (original): i'm doing my best but this isn't easy and my RL situation is very stressful.. i would like to share details but not now, not here |
→Inline-comments: You were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding" |
||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
Here's what I suggest. Unblock me first. I'll agree not to edit mainspace. When I get back we can discuss any conditions in a more proper hearing. Also, please don't take a lack of response to a question as being evasive. I've learned that I am a survivor of abuse and my first instinct I have when I feel bullied, teased, or verbally attack is to freeze up and not respond. Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. It's sad that so many good admins have left the project and have little intention of returning. |
Here's what I suggest. Unblock me first. I'll agree not to edit mainspace. When I get back we can discuss any conditions in a more proper hearing. Also, please don't take a lack of response to a question as being evasive. I've learned that I am a survivor of abuse and my first instinct I have when I feel bullied, teased, or verbally attack is to freeze up and not respond. Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. It's sad that so many good admins have left the project and have little intention of returning. |
||
:See [[WP:AN#PBS 20 August 2015|my comments]] in the section [[WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant]]. Your were given a 24 hour cooling off period by me (see [[#Other people's talk page edits]]). You disingenuously said that you were taking a wikibreak while simultaneously editing with an IP address (something you have recently admitted). Your response to your block was: |
|||
:#"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. ..." |
|||
#"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. ..." |
|||
#"PhilKnight&Kww. I can't explain this edit either. ... 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." |
|||
#Selective deletion of other people's comments leads to a talk page block (16 November 2014). |
|||
:14 August 2015 restoration or talk page. AN request for standard offer made Two important points made by you: |
|||
:*"As per #2, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines." |
|||
:*"As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and 'extraordinary reasons to object to a return'." |
|||
:The first bullet point shows that you have understood the mechanics of why you were blocked. '''But''' you seem to have completely missed that the block came out of an escalation of a 24 hour ban (where you tenaciously and deceptively continued along the same path of unacceptable behaviour). It is the attitude that lead to the behaviour rather than the mechanics of that behaviour that you need to address. The problem I see is that since your access to this talk page was enabled you have shown no understanding of this. The section [[#WikiProject Syrian Civil War]] is a sign of the same tenacious behaviour in the area of ISIL (most editors would have waited until their block was lifted before suggesting a new project which others have already rejected). Your comments above {{green|Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up.}} is a clear indication that you really do not understand yet, the underlying reasons your account was blocked (you were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding"). -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 11:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Regarding "Inconsistency" == |
== Regarding "Inconsistency" == |
Revision as of 11:35, 23 August 2015
Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil and follow userspace guidelines. Due to personal health issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can Thank one of my edits which will trigger an email alert.~Technophant (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 444 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present. |
Other people's talk page edits
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
temporaryWP: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)
Blocked again
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Kww(talk) 02:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
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. 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
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
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 [1]. 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)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
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)
- 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. [2] here is that edit. Here is the unblock[3]. 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 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)
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:
- 02:37, November 10, 2014: Kww then blocks Technophant and notifies them:
- 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:
- 09:01, November 15, 2014: User:PBS calls it "deceptive" (see above under point 2):
- 21:55, November 15, 2014: Lie 3. Technophant admits the IP was him and claims a comma was missing from the edit summary:
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)
- 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)
- If so I do apologise but I thought you were talking to this[4]. 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)
- If so I do apologise but I thought you were talking to this[4]. 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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).
Just leaving a quick note mentionning 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)
Talkpage and e-mail access restored
This AN discussion seems to have slid off into the archives (very hastily, I must say) without resolution. I've taken it on myself to restore talkpage and e-mail access. Please use them wisely, Technophant. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
- Thank you Bishonen. I'm glad you followed up on this. I want to start a block appeal and getting TPA back seemed like a good first step. I noticed a precedent here on AN of changing the Special:AbuseFilter/201 (which has mostly been maintained by User:King of Hearts) to allow temporary access to AN. There's other instances of this being used in the filter history: Special:AbuseFilter/history/201. Since I no longer need to use UTRS to ask for an unblock review I would like to be able to post the request on AN myself so I can not only author the request but also respond to questions. ~Technophant (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively, a simpler than an edit filter, perhaps a section of your talk page could be transcluded onto AN? After the thread is archived it could then be subst'ed permanently and you wouldn't need to keep the content on your talk page permanently. At least I think that'd be possible... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:Salvidrim, The edit filter isn't too hard, here's an example filter: [5]. Transclusion is less confusing. I can use 'onlyinclude' tags. Either way is fine. ~Technophant (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: if you're available I've made the request below.~Technophant (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please post the following to WP:AN using transclusion (see above) to allow me to add extra sections in response to questions. Ty. ~Technophant (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yo, apparently interwiki links don't work in transclusions (don't ask me!), so for links to Simple wiki, etc., just use external link format. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: Thanks for posting it. I changed the links. I thought the onlyinclude tags could be removed because I thought you used {{PAGE>NAME|transcludesection=SECTIONNAME}}. Also, since I mentioned Kww he should be notified.~Technophant (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't know that was a thing, I'll test it out next time I need to do something like this. I've notified Kww as requested. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: Thanks again. BTW: I've taken a look at bug tracker. The problem with interwiki transclusion is a known bug and a fix has already been proposed. ~Technophant (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't know that was a thing, I'll test it out next time I need to do something like this. I've notified Kww as requested. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim: Thanks for posting it. I changed the links. I thought the onlyinclude tags could be removed because I thought you used {{PAGE>NAME|transcludesection=SECTIONNAME}}. Also, since I mentioned Kww he should be notified.~Technophant (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: and @QuackGuru:. The original request I made AN was archived early [6] however I did get my TPA back and I've made an unblock request on AN here. I would like to thank you two for voicing your support and allowing me a second chance. Thx. ~Technophant (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you @QuackGuru:. When I get my privs back I'll erase the SPI userpage I have on you. People should be judged for who they are now and not what they've done in the past. BTW @QuackGuru:, why do you keep erasing your userpage? Have you felt prejudice for preferring a red nick? ~Technophant (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Technophant, if you want me to U1 User:Technophant/SPI right away, let me know. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:Salvidrim: please go ahead and CSD User:Technophant/SPI as U1. Time to let go of past resentments. ~Technophant (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Technophant, if you want me to U1 User:Technophant/SPI right away, let me know. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (original)
Note: The below text is transcluded on WP:AN and is being discussed there .
I would like to use this provision to appeal my 10 November 2014 block by Kww for block evasion by using IP edits which violated WP:ILLEGIT. The following are the Standard Offer terms:
- Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
- Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
- Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
As per #1, I have not edited enwiki for over six months under any account.
As per #2, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines.
As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and "extraordinary reasons to object to a return".
I started editing enwiki in August 2007 as Stillwaterising (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) with 6,600 edits between 2007-2012. I had stopped editing from June 2010 until April 2012 as a protest against the Wikimedia child porn (/explicit image) scandal and the failure to approve a reasonable policy to prevent future issues. (This account was retired July 2014 [7].)
I resumed editing in July 2014 under my legitimate alternative account Technophant (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). I declared it a Clean Start account and removed references to my previous account not to hide past misbehaviour but rather to avoid future contact with cyberbullies. This is an acceptable use of WP:Clean Start. Under my new account I have made 4000 edits, almost all in 2014.
Nearly all of my problems have occurred since my return in 2014. A large part of my frustration stems from the above mentioned incident. I've also had a hard time adjusting to all of the changes that had happened in my 4 year absence, and the extra scrutiny incurred from using a Clean Start account.
Wikipedia has changed over the years, and behavior that used to be unacceptable is now tolerated (and vice versa). There are also many new guidelines (mostly regarding content/quality control) are in place that seem to go against the founding mantra "Verifiability, not truth". One thing I've learned is that Wikipedia is a force to be reckoned with. It's one of the top sites on the entire web and often the top search result in Google. Teamwork and collaboration has become a major part of the experience.
Please note: during my block I have made constructive edits to Simple Wikipedia (contribs) including disambiguating Minesweeper. I've also, in the past, edited other projects (See my Global contribs).
Please also see my recent request on AN to unblocked my TPA and email here. Thank you for your consideration.~Technophant (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Additional comments from user:'
@Nyttend: Re your question below. Yes, I posted an unblock request on AN 5 days ago asking for my TPA and email access to be restored which it now has. The link to this auto-archived discussion is here. Please note that there are comments relevant to this request included there.~Technophant (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kww: regarding the issue of lying. By saying "block evasion by using IP edits" above I was tacitly admitting to several IP edits at Special:Contributions/71.40.3.92 from July onward. I was ashamed of my impulsive edit here and tried to claim it was made by other users on my shared IP (it was not). Remember "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." ~Technophant (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Guy, re Too Soon. I don't think there should be unnecessarily high barriers to obtaining a second chance. I'm not a new user that has little experience or has a long history of problems. If you check my Global Contribs for current account Technophant and my retired account Stillwaterising you'll see that I have over 1600 edits on over a dozen projects other than enwiki. If you look at the talk archives for Stillwaterising you'll see that I had no major issues except for a inappropriate block that was immediately reverted. That, and my 10k+ edits on enwiki over the past 7 years in a wide array of topics (including Vandal Patrol, WikiProject Help Project, and policy discussions) should be more than enough evidence of commitment to the Project. ~Technophant (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Inline-comments
- Technophant, In your edit of 21:55, 15 November 2014 you claimed that I was hounding you. I dispute this. I would prefer for either evidence of this to be presented so that the matter be discussed or for such claim to be struck. GregKaye 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Greg. Good to see you again! LTNS. The past is the past and I've long forgiven you and I can hope that you can forgive me as well. I would like to have a good working relationship with you like we did back when were were working on the ISIL timeline of maps. Let's agree to stop fighting and keep our disagreements out of the public's view. Time to move on, agreed? ~Technophant (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Technophant I really appreciate the past is the past view but also hope that you can reconsider the context at the time. In a thread User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#"Jihadist" qualification and User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#Guido within which another editor commented: "
I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, ..
" and "I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential.
" I made interventions in good faith and, from my perspective, there was no hounding. GregKaye 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Technophant I really appreciate the past is the past view but also hope that you can reconsider the context at the time. In a thread User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#"Jihadist" qualification and User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2#Guido within which another editor commented: "
- Greg, I can not answer your request at this time. I suggest that you do more work in the vandalism project. Before Cluebot got so amazing a few dozen dedicated edits would stay up sometimes late at night trying to both quickly yet accurate pick out whether a revision should be warned, welcomed, blocked or accepted. I was demanding work and you couldn't do more than 3-4 hours without taking a break. I got so used to dealing with abusive editors through a system of escalating warnings then referring if they show a pattern of abuse, not heeding the warnings then they were referred with a simple keystroke to be banned admins. I think that we had a good collaboration and you took it way to personally. This incident was a one-time exception to "don't template the regulars" that didn't go well for either of us. ~Technophant (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
→ →===Summary=== I'm not sure why this standard offer process was left to be my only way to request an unblock. I had to ask for help on irq and then (in an awkward process) to first simply ask for the ability to edit my own talk page then devise a scheme to be able to put live content here.
This process isn't at all suitable for a full and fair hearing or discussion. I feels like a violation of my right to a fair hearing because I can't respond. I feel like a prisoner that is put on trial in a cage and there's no way to answer the questions correctly .
Here's what I suggest. Unblock me first. I'll agree not to edit mainspace. When I get back we can discuss any conditions in a more proper hearing. Also, please don't take a lack of response to a question as being evasive. I've learned that I am a survivor of abuse and my first instinct I have when I feel bullied, teased, or verbally attack is to freeze up and not respond. Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. It's sad that so many good admins have left the project and have little intention of returning.
- See my comments in the section WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant. Your were given a 24 hour cooling off period by me (see #Other people's talk page edits). You disingenuously said that you were taking a wikibreak while simultaneously editing with an IP address (something you have recently admitted). Your response to your block was:
- "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. ..."
- "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. ..."
- "PhilKnight&Kww. I can't explain this edit either. ... 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."
- Selective deletion of other people's comments leads to a talk page block (16 November 2014).
- 14 August 2015 restoration or talk page. AN request for standard offer made Two important points made by you:
- "As per #2, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines."
- "As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and 'extraordinary reasons to object to a return'."
- The first bullet point shows that you have understood the mechanics of why you were blocked. But you seem to have completely missed that the block came out of an escalation of a 24 hour ban (where you tenaciously and deceptively continued along the same path of unacceptable behaviour). It is the attitude that lead to the behaviour rather than the mechanics of that behaviour that you need to address. The problem I see is that since your access to this talk page was enabled you have shown no understanding of this. The section #WikiProject Syrian Civil War is a sign of the same tenacious behaviour in the area of ISIL (most editors would have waited until their block was lifted before suggesting a new project which others have already rejected). Your comments above Nobody should have to go this far to get a silly misunderstanding cleared up. is a clear indication that you really do not understand yet, the underlying reasons your account was blocked (you were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding"). -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "Inconsistency"
User:Miniapolis, you wrote on AN: "Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed.Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)" You seem to mistakenly conflating the 2014 alt-med topic ban under my current account (Technophant) as being part of my 2007-2011 editing as Stillwaterising. That account is retired and blocked by KWW. Please see my latest comment above for clarification. Thanks. ~Technophant (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, please take into account that due to confusion and suspicion the (legitimate) use of Clean Start and alternate accounts, this case has become way more complicated than it needed to be. Please see User:Adjwilley's talk archive for more clarity regarding my earlier topic ban and account usage. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Messages for other users
- @User:Lugnuts, thanks for pointing out that Kww was defrocked. I noticed here on User:Adjwilley's talk page and followed the trail of clues after I wrote my request. Kww's blocks, while being technically justified, were very harshly applied. A simple warning or 2 day block would had been more than enough for me to get the message. Also congrats on creating 23,000+ articles! I can't conceive the amount of hard work and dedication that must have taken. ~Technophant (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem and thanks for the kind words. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @LightandDark2000: Thank you for maintaining my transclusion scheme for the ISIL timeline [8] in my absence. Although it seemed too complex to some I'm glad that my novel use of transclusion was not discarded. ~Technophant (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)|
- @Serialjoepsycho: I like to talk to you in private about the user problems you mentioned on my unblock request at AN. Would you mind emailing me please? Respectfully yours, Technophant (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's really nothing to talk about privately. You don't owe me an explanation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Requesting editing privileges for WP:AN and my userpage
To User:Salvidrim or to any admin or helper:
- Reason: I'm changing a Special:AbuseFilter to allow temporary access to AN and my Userpage so I can respond to all of the questions being asked of me re my unblock request above. I noticed a precedent here on AN. There's examples of this being used in the filter history: Special:AbuseFilter/history/201.
- Task: I've done some research; to find out what the pageID is I used pageid={{pageid}} to show the current pageid. An edit filter can temporarily be placed that will allow me to respond to users questions at WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (pageid=5149102) as well my userpage (pageid=43371109) which is currently blocked.
Flags=Enabled and with the following parameters:
user_name = "Technophant" &
!contains_any (article_articleid, "5149102", "43371109")
I would appreciate this be done soon. The clock is ticking (3 days left until close). 'This request could be posted to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested if help can't be found. ~Technophant (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:Mdann52 Thank you for posting the below request to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Help_request. Since it is a potentially contentious request could you also post it to newly created [[[Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard]] and the more active Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested as well? ~Technophant (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. I'm responding to the adminhelp request for an edit filter. I'll try not to sound autocratic, but someone has to say this: No. Despite any precedent you think you might have found, we don't normally provide personalised edit filters for this or any other reason. If you can't secure an unblock by making assurances about what you're going to edit, then you can ask others to transfer your comments to AN until such time as you are unblocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Page Information tool error
When I used the "Page information" tool on AN (an ANI) it froze then failed due to an SQL error. Too many subpages perhaps?
A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
- Function: InfoAction::pageCounts
Error: 2013 Lost connection to MySQL server during query (10.64.48.2x)
This could just be an enwiki specific bug so it shouldn't need to be reported to Wikimedia's Phabricator unless there's no solution found. It's a minor one though. ~Technophant (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- You have a transcluded section from your talk page, and the discussion appears to be steering towards unblocking you. Why do you want to be able to edit AN directly? Sam Walton (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Syrian Civil War
- @RGloucester:, I would like to revisit my proposal to start WP:WikiProject Syrian Civil War. From the list of related pages below this conflict has a large number of pages. I had to leave soon after I proposed it and due to a silly mistake I've been unable to edit since. Hopefully I'll get unblocked soon. ~Technophant (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has a large number of related articles: