User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:141B:2EE5:595B:9C46

@Yamla: @Ponyo: Well as I stated in the appeal, I can't post "there" again, per the situation. I feel like I've covered every angle of interpretation in the three pastes I made, so, while I can write a summary here, please do review them https://pastebin.com/G3GyS7ah https://pastebin.com/kJJyyVz8 https://pastebin.com/CvVJ7nVY . The block obviously occurred to artificially end a dispute, the admin considered WP:OUTRAGE. I merely reverted edits to a talk page banner, against editors refusing to discuss the banner's legitimacy. If anyone has experienced IDHT behavior, what about me who gets my every effective point ignored and unresponded to. I have gone out of my way to respond meticulously to every point made on that talk page, a fact which got me blocked specifically to censor me. The rfc governed general weight, and most people agreed with me partially, but only mentioned the medical infobox not the banner nor the article's classification as medical. The only person to mention the infobox in their comment agreed with me, then 3 people disagreed making consensus 2 against 3 where IDHT behavior compelled all participants to stop responding as soon as I provided source confirming suicide a historical, anthropological, and cultural phenomenon. The other two sections relate to the banner and objectifying language. Once ANYONE responded to the banners section treating me with the dignity of someone whose opinion matters enough to respond rather than express IDHT behavior, I would not revert them.

The block coincided with the following attempted post:

:{{ping|Graham87}} I would dispute categorizing articles on cigarettes, alcohol, driving, and other causes of death as medical. If you want to categorize [[death] itself as medical then remove sources according to WP:MEDRS, I fear I must oppose that as well, because "without death, life has no meaning" and civilization would lose itself if every POV implying so silenced.
:As for your comment about consensus on you 2R, consensus implies a finished discussion where no opposes the action to take anymore. Consensus can't occur without a discussion, nor with even one single individual willing to disagree and discuss further; unless you feel willing to exclude them from that discussion but I don't want to believe wikipedia operates that way.
:Anyways no one has responded to a single word I wrote in my original post in this section.
:~~~~

So, no, I didn't express IDHT behavior, but others did.

No, that doesn't qualify as WP:NOTTHEM, because, while I can prove others disruptively added that banner without discussion, I didn't get blocked for that. I got blocked to censor moral WP:OUTRAGE.

2600:1700:8680:E900:141B:2EE5:595B:9C46 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to emphasize: I did not reverted anyone after they decided to participate in the discussion in the relevant section.

2600:1700:8680:E900:141B:2EE5:595B:9C46 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discovered this contribution page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 collects all posts by this IP range, so I found the original administrator to respond to the unblock request.

2600:1700:8680:E900:141B:2EE5:595B:9C46 (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, even treating the 3:2 non-consensus as consensus, calling suicide medical does not mean we exclude non-medical sources. Only one editor in the whole rfc mentioned the thought non-"medical" qualify as unsuitable for suicide, calling me incompetent because of that then failing to respond after that or give any reason for their opinion.

Excluding sources requires discussion. A discussion not had, because I have gotten censored without just cause by: User:Berean_Hunter plus User:Red_Rock_Canyon.

2600:1700:8680:E900:141B:2EE5:595B:9C46 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---