User talk:Technophant

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

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

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

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for topic ban violation. "Broadly construed" means just that, and using medical examples at a talk page devoted to fringe theories isn't even particularly broad. Given the warnings at User talk:Technophant since your topic ban, it doesn't seem that you have any intent of abiding by it. 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) 04:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Like I said in the edit, I've never actually read the Fringe guideline and I didn't know that it contained references to acupuncture or alternative medcine. While User:Kww wants to pretend this is ONLY about a topic ban violation, it is indeed more. On his talk page he entertains QuackGuru's assertions that I may be a sockpuppet. I am not. Technophant is a legitimately created alternate account, later converted to a clean start account. My other accounts are User:Stillwaterising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (active since 2007, over 8000 edits, legitimate user)

(manual bot account), and User:Stillwaterisng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (created by mistake, 3 contribs). This is a topic ban, right? At least that what I keep getting told. This block is clearly misguided and I know Kww read this. This block is farce comprised of simple misunderstanding. - Technophant (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As mentioned in the block notice, your edits on the Fringe Theories talk page easily fall under "broadly construed." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

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

Accept reason:

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

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

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

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

• Having followed this a little, I think the whole thing has mainly been a result of confusion and frustration. Technophant's unblock request looks good to me and I can't really see what more he can be expected to say. I would certainly support an unblock now. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound clip in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

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

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

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

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

Note about edit warring

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

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

Topic ban from Alternative Medicine

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

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

@Technophant: These edits are not compliant with the topic ban notified above:

• At WT:WikiProject Medicine#Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold comment: 03:09, 24 July 2014.

This has nothing to do with the topic ban. It's comment on site-wide policy. - Technophant (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More, but I do see your point. I'll refrain. - Technophant (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• At Talk:Acupuncture#Edit warring rather than getting consensus comment: 06:01, 24 July 2014.

Topic bans are strictly enforced so please do not edit or comment about those topics anywhere on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad on this one, I had several pages open, I thought it was a user talk page. I took all the CBAN pages off my watchlist. - Technophant (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

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

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

response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry about that. That was an unintended deletion and I have restored the template. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Recent Accomplishments

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

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

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

Rewording of topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nil desperandum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know why you keep talking about Adjwilley. I blocked you and left messages on you talk page, not him. So your plan was to retire the Technophant account and with a "clean start" Stillwaterising account continue to edit freely?—Kww(talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me, it's the inverse. I wasn't sure which account I was going to go with but I had def. had enough of "splitting myself" into two. The confusion is completely understandable. - Technophant (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You said in response to the SPI allegations from the most tenacious (and obnoxious) quackguru: "Your evidence linking Technophant to Stillwaterising is rock solid, but there's no evidence of a crime" so why the idefinate block for a comment Adjwilly said is simply "philosophical musings?" You seem to have jumped the gun and are unwilling to just go ahead and admit the mistake? Come on, really?! - Technophant (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a case of "no harm no foul". I was so upset over this I stayed up all night worrying about this. Now it's 9am and I have a splitting headache and the block still continues. This has been both harmful and foul and its against everything WP is supposed to be about. - Technophant (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit you were blocked for was made after my comment to QG.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww! You are acting as if you are unaware that you made a mistake. This diff clearly shows that you were informed by user:Adjwilley that you made a HUGE mistake and you agree to unblock me, HOWEVER you INSIST that your block was justified in every way. I don't know you from Adam but I do see a problem here. I think this should go to RfC/U and there's a consensus it will need to go to arbitration. Sorry, but this is too big of a deception to say "oops" and pretend like you don't know you did something wrong. - Technophant (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your reading comprehension skills. Adjwilley did not inform me that I made a huge mistake. I did not agree to unblock you. I have not said "oops" in any fashion, and I am pretending nothing. Your original unblock request is still up, being reviewed by multiple admins. Sooner or later, someone will deny or accept it. At this point, I would still recommend denying it. Since I'm the original blocking admin, I'm not permitted to deny it myself. That's our system for guaranteeing an independent review of all blocks, and your block is being independently reviewed. So far, no reviewer has decided that your block was erroneous.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify my wp:RfC/U request; You are acting as if you are unaware that you made a mistake. This diff clearly shows that you were informed by user:Adjwilley that you made a HUGE mistake and you agree to unblock me, However, you INSIST that your block was justified in every way. I see a big problem here. This should go to WP:RfC/U and there's a consensus that you are being deceptive, it will probably need to go to arbitration. This is too big of a deception to say "oops" and pretend like you don't know you did something wrong. - Technophant (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify too. I did not say that Kww made a Huge mistake. I said that I was troubled that they were the one making the block. The block could have been made by any administrator, and was not outside of community norms, though I suspect many admins would have just done a 24 hour block or something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of this discussion makes it clear that you aren't reading. There's no deception involved, I didn't make a mistake, and no one is saying that I have made a huge mistake. I don't know how anyone could have faith that you will abide for a topic ban when you don't demonstrate sufficient reading comprehension for me to believe that you understand your topic ban.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Are you saying that it is some kind of major accomplishment that you get along normally with other people on 1 article? Getting along normally should be the norm, not the exception. And in what way is how you get along on ISIS (militant group) related to your block? And how does that show that Kww is deceptive and is making a big mistake? Nothing you say seems to have any bearing on the subject of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Atlan, the subject of this essay section titled "Answering allegations of sockpuppetry, attempted outings, and the truth of why I hid my identity" and I wrote it it is in response to Adjwilley's inquiry as to how can I show that if unblocked I can continue to edit productively. I'm really beginning to tire at this broken record kind of tactics to try to get me to answer the topic ban issue (already done above in great deatil) and the issue of potential SPI issues regarding the use of my alternate account.

Actually I had been editing (as a wp:clean start attempt to try and really follow the guideline and try to get the 'ick' off me from my primarily in the topics of aviation. I used to help build flight simulators I used to also fly flight sims and model gliders. I copy edited and refimproved Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (part of the transponder system) and I put in a merger request for Traffic Information Service – Broadcast helped and contributed toward fact checking the Flight 370 article.

I've never seen ANY user EVER have to go through this much effort just to get a closing decision on a block request. From here on out I rest my case. If anybody else asks "but how does relate to ...?" it probably won't be answered. - Technophant (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On a side note what is an "esoteric claim about medicine"? I googled it but the only search result is the page itself. I looked up esoteric in the dictionary and now I'm even more confused. - Technophant (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see something like "sixth chakra ascending radiance" being esoteric, however the page could be more clear regarding alternative/complimentary medicine (what is or isn't esoteric). Still reading... - Technophant (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that I need to stay away from the page Intelligent design even though I think it's not a good example of truly fringe idea? How can I tell what's declared fringe or not? Talk headers? Surely religion doesn't apply, (even though I can easily see how my own (Baha'i) would be considered such). - Technophant (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Declined unblock

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