Jump to content

User talk:Technophant/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Blocked again

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for renewed sockpuppetry. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 02:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force is clearly a conflict-related page so it was covered by your ban. Since there is no defect in the reason for User:Kww's block you should now be moving toward the steps of WP:GAB. That's the part where you should explain how you will act differently in the future. The four numbered points below by PBS appear to be correct. If you actually see no problem with your edit of a conflict-related page at 20:57 November 9 with an IP while your account was under a ban from such edits, imposed at 18:17 on November 9 by User:PBS, and you believe you are here due to biased actions by admins then I'm not sure how we get started on an unblock negotiation. My suggestion would be that you review the sequence of events carefully and see if you can come up with a more persuasive unblock request, one that is more believable given the diffs that we can all see. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Unblock redux

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

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

Request reason:

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

Update: Most importantly the topic ban was lifted by PBS prior to the IP comment! See [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)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

Taking into account the whole editing history of the IP address, the editing history of this account, and your comments in discussion on this page during the block, I find your explanation highly unconvincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Unblock comments

@Technophant:

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  • 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 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:
  • 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)
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)

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

Exactly! We cannot AGF in Technophant. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
BullRangifer/Brangifer I asked in an edit summary for an IBAN from this professional physical therapist/deadly character assassin. Seriously dude, you're a THERAPIST! You supposedly heal ppl, however the only thing I've seen you do here is use your expertise in human anatomy and psychology to harm. You are also a member of a professional certifying organization, ergo you need to declare your COI regarding articles such as acupuncture and chiropractic. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that you have professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor). Please do not EVER interact with User:Technophant again or any of his affiliated pages (broadly construed). Pushing past this firm and non-negotiable boundry WILL lead to sanctions.~Technophant (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'll reply to this sad and unsuccessful attempt at outing/sleuthing/poisoning the well. I am retired, but I did work as a PT, and that is no secret, but I have no idea what the "certifying" bit is about. I don't have any COI or "professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor)." That's just BS. I generally ignore the PT articles, and any of the few edits I have ever made to them are welcome to be examined. If they are not neutral or wrong, "just fix it". That's what we do here.
Otherwise, Techno has no right to "ban" anyone who civilly responds to their comments or otherwise uses their talk page for its intended purpose. Users do not own their talk pages. They do have some rights, but those rights do not extend so far that they are allowed to do anything which inhibits the purpose of the talk page. It is for communication, including what they may consider unwelcome communication. All the deletions and constant refactoring they have done has also messed things up. Don't do it.
Technophant's talk page access is now blocked, and I don't expect any reply. In fact, it would be best for them to just be silent and never again try to out or attack another editor for their supposed affiliations. That is considered a personal attack here. All the nasty and foul edit summaries left by Technophant speak for themselves. I won't expound on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disturbing email

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

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

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

UTRS appeal #12510

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

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)

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)

@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)
@QuackGuru: If you hadn't already noticed, I made the request to delete the SPI userpage (done). Thank you for your Strong Support. It's not easy being under the microscope. ~Technophant (talk) 04:25, 31 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:

  1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
  2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
  3. 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) (checkuser emailed). 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)

@Jusdafax:, re you comment below. Do you even know me (or GregKaye for that matter)? It what way was I uncivil towards him? If what your basing your vote on is simply the comments here I don't think you fully understand the situation. The users who have been involved with me in the past are best suited to make decisions. Users should only be banned if they impose a credible threat to the project. I implore you to find a Mainspace revision that does this. This kangaroo court proceedings reveal several meatball:lynch mob actions against me, but for some reason I keep coming back for more. Truth be told I care a lot about the Project and these past months have been very difficult for me. I could have just created another account but I decided to keep my integrity and respect the terms. I've displayed "a basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively" what more could anyone ask? ~Technophant (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, re not being able to trust me. It saddens me that you feel that I can't be trusted. I've made every effort to employ rigorous honesty in all my affairs. If you would please watch this TedTalk: Trust is the true currency of the new economy. In my whole history of editing Wikipedia I've only recall making one intentionally false statement by denying I made this edit which I have since fessed up to. I made that impulsive edit out of anger toward the user who placed the ipsock template. As to other accusations of "lying" please let it be known that I suffer from multiple "brain insults" (both infectious and traumatic) and as a result have significant memory difficulties. Sometimes the way I remember things weren't actually the way they happened, however this does constitute not a deliberate attempt at deception; just confusion on my part. I really just want another chance to prove myself and be given the same assumption of good faith and rights than every registered user gets by simply creating an new account. ~Technophant (talk) 02:02, 1 September 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)
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 too 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)
Technophant Please can you cite your comment "you took it way too personally".
Please substantiate your comment that you "can not answer (my) request at this time". Why?
You have had plenty of time to consider my question regarding the hounding accusation yet you refuse either to provide substantiation or to drop it.
Please, please do not raise accusation or cast aspersion. Citation is needed for fair opportunity to reply. Replies at times other than at times when issues have been raised in other places[8] and pings also may help. I only noticed your comment here following thank from BullRangifer on my 18 August post. GregKaye 07:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye From what I see, you technically !voted twice. You have one comment that says "Unresolved issues" and below a !vote for "Oppose". I can tell that you still haven't forgiven me for taking you ANI in October, however if you take the time to reread it [9] I said that "I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions. I don't want this editor topic banned" which undoubtedly saved you from receiving any sanctions. I've repeatedly requested that you drop your grudge and accept my sincere apology. ☮ ~Technophant (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Technophant I was mistaken to write "Unresolved issues" when I should have written "Unresolved issue". If you can supply a link back to that discussion I will happily strike that final "s" and any related content. I have asked is that you either cite or drop your allegation that "Gregkaye was clearly hounding me" and I was right to flag this up. I did this in reference to "Unresolved issues" in that I interpreted your allegation as being related to a number of my edits. However I should have presented this as being an "Unresolved issue" as it relates to a single unresolved allegation. At this stage you are also adding to this with your, "you took it way too personally" slurs and now, "you still haven't forgiven me" and allegations of "grudge". All I want is for things to be resolved yet you are adding to issues. I repeat, all I want is for things to be resolved. "I've repeatedly requested that you drop" or cite your allegation/s. I had forgotten who had taken me to AN/I in October. That was a long time ago. The issue was in regard to the use of "jihadist" as a description in the ISIL article. Certainly, for reasons that I had not properly processed at the time, I was right. GregKaye 06:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I would strike it if I could but since it's part of an closed unblock request it wouldn't be proper to change it now. I've been warned for "refactoring this talk page to selectively remove or collapse comments by other users that are pertinent to the block" and editing a 10 month old closed discussion is pretty much along those lines. So, please let me apologize here for making that accusation. Events that were unfolding in RL at that time had zapped my patience and I was not my usual self.~Technophant (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: 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. ~Technophant (talk) 10:26, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

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:
  1. "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. ..."
  2. "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. ..."
  3. "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."
  4. 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)
PBS you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I clearly remember reading on somebody's talk page that you agreed to lift the 24hr topic ban on my account. I had 100% expected to be gone before noon that day however the person who agreed to drive me (ahem!) changed her mind saying the she wouldn't take to the hospital at all if I wanted to go to one that she disapproved of.. so, now I've already said "i'm outta here" and in order to NOT seem disingenuous I logged out and spent my time anxiously refreshing my watchlist. I know what I remember and I'm NOT a liar. Trust is the true currency of the new economy so apparently right now I'm flat broke just because the "official notification" of the lift of the ban was an hour or so after I made the ip edit. Again, I didn't want to be called a liar so I made that very very minor tweak in the order of redirects (which in no way harmed the project). Does anybody else see this as retaliation for attempting to start a RFC/U for PBS exhibiting hostility toward users that question what the heck was up with law and order an the talk page of THE biggest news story of this century getting 2 Million page hits a day?! Getting the ISIL page headed in the right was a task that needed doing and there was nobody else stepping up to the plate. I haven't had the time, energy or interest in keeping up with the ISIL page. I tried to to give it a quick look-over last night for the first time in a year and besides seeming very verbose, bulky and difficult for to read with my eye condition everything seemed in order. I'm happy to step away from the page knowing that early on (spring of 2014) the persons who were editing it were highly qualified, experienced, and the discourse was literally the best experience I've ever had enwiki. To see THAT turn into THIS just because I wouldn't do exactly as you asked which was revert edits that had already been commented on (a big no no in my book, supposed to strike instead) but when I refused you blocked me! This is insane! ~Technophant (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I very very very much appreciate the kind words of support from the editors (especially MeropeRiddle's) that actually knew me for who I was. There's a minority who see me as a fraud, a liar, a sockpuppet, whatever. For those who a reputation to uphold, or a position the would like to defend I'm seen as a threat. Whatever. I just want to get back to editing, and I've decided to return to my original account (SWR) and wish to end this insane experiment of literally splitting my psyche by creating confusion between the two identities. User: Adjwilley asked me to pick one account and now I regret my decision to use the newer one. ~Technophant (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Adjwilley also remarked here, with an edit summary "what a shame": 

I'm also troubled by User:Kww's indef block over these issues, as I've seen him express strong views on the subject matter making me question whether he's emotionally "involved" in the underlying content dispute. It's also discouraging to see the blocks come at a time when the user was trying to come clean: voluntarily disclosing his previous retired account (several thousand edits with only one block) and unwatchlisting all pages related to alt-med. I was hoping that the topic ban would allow him to continue edit productively in less problematic areas...now I don't suspect he'll be editing at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}}

The reason why my unblock requests were denied were because KWW refused to allow it. Now that he's been "defrocked" his objections are irrelevant.

I do not agree that Kww's objections are irrelevant, and just because you say so does not make it so. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's curious that nobody has mentioned that this current block came after I posted Requests for Comment/User:PBS - Admin misconduct just prior to leaving on my break. My first negative interaction PBS was on his talk page here. My objection to closing a talk page discussion without giving a reason or signature was improper. I asked him to correct this on his talk page but he ignored me. Some people feel "shown up" when others point out their mistakes. I feel his actions toward me to be retaliatory and there needs to be some kind of discussion about this to prevent his misuse of his position of authority in the future. ~Technophant (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"When you are in a hole stop digging" (see Law of holes)

You are not doing yourself any favours. "I asked him to correct this on his talk page but he ignored me." See "here" This AN is about whether you should be unblocked, not whether I should have my mop taken away. I suggest that you follow the advise you have been given and stop trying to deflect the blame for your behaviour onto others, and start to persuade other editors that you recognize what was the issue is with your behaviour, and how you will modify that behaviour. To date I do not think you have done that. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

PBS, you're right - you did respond. I only brought it up because I thought that might the original incident may have lead to a resentment toward me. I don't want to have this adversarial relationship any more. I understand that your job as as as admin is difficult and you have to deal with a lot of different editors with a variety of issues however you seem to be unusually hard on me and I'm not really sure why. I want to use this opportunity to clear the air and get a fresh start. Would you please accept my apology? ☮ ~Technophant (talk) 05:51, 1 September 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)
There's really nothing to talk about privately. You don't owe me an explanation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion to have I be allowed an Iban is good idea. I was going to ask for it as part of my unblock then removed the request at the last minute.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Protective IBAN from Brangifer

I'm requesting an indefinite IBAN from BullRangifer/Brangifer. This user has been a real thorn in my side, starting with a noedit threat on the acupuncture talk page. His numerous ad homenim attacks (calling me a liar [11], foolish and showing a "gross lack of AGF".[12], describing me as an editor who is "simply incapable of learning") are just a few examples. He's exploited every opportunity to recommend that I be blocked for a year or permanently. Then when his actions are questioned (below) he's takes statements to protect his image.

The most egregious personal attack was made on User talk:Adjwilley. he made regarding my self-declared mental illness as not only a reason for having me banned, he also implied that I should be involuntarily euthanized with a link to the article that which in the most part describes Action T4. Here is the edit he made a long list of reasons that I should be have my TPA removed: [13]

Hidden inside the words "They'd be better off" is a wlink to involuntary euthanasia page ([[Involuntary euthanasia|They'd be better off]] if they stopped editing). I feel like his remarks that I should be gassed as the Nazi's did to “incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.” as beyond offensive. It violates Wikimedia's no discrimination, harassment, and no personal attacks policies. It specifically violates WP:NPA's "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" among others. Saying somebody should be executed IS a type of death threat in my book. I wanted to take this to ANI but I was blocked at the time so I commented about this on my talk page [14]] however the only response I got was that his remarks were "metaphorical" and "in bad taste" but not a death threat.[15]

Wikipedia has zero tolerance for death threats, broadly construed. "Metaphorically" saying a user should be executed against his/her will is a just a thinly veiled death-threat. The way BullRangifer hide his reference in a Wikilink was sneaky and could easy be overlooked, but it still still threatening.

I get chills of fear down my spine just seeing this username on my screen. His continued presence should not be tolerated. I would like to be able to go to my next NAMI meeting and give a presentation on how Wikipedia is a fun, safe, stimulating place where disabled people can use their skills to help further the mankind's knowledge however this is not a safe place and such intolerance should not be allowed even in the slightest. ~Technophant (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm back from the hospital. I had access to my email there but was not able to edit. I was given the limited ability to respond to other users by the means of transcluding a section of my userpage. Normally, Standard Offer requests are just one or two paragraphs posted to AN and the discussion goes from there without the editor's further input and if I had to do this over again I would have preferred things be simple rather than overly complex and drawn out. I'm willing to "decouple" my request for an IBAN from my Standard Offer request. The discussion about the IBAN has gotten a bit out of hand and any further comments about it would only serve to fan the flames of conflict. ~Technophant (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure

I am requesting that an uninvolved (but informed) admin please close this unblock request. It's been open for 10+ days and there's seems to be clear consensus.

Because of the unresolved matter of requesting protection from Brangifer, I'm requesting that the thread NOT be marked as "please do not modify" so the much needed discussion regarding the treatment and rights of the mentally ill can be brought to the attention of a wider forum. Thank you. ~Technophant (talk) 19:51, 27 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)

  • 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)
zzuuzz It's very difficult to respond to users questions (which are many) and having access to my userpage isn't contentious. I requested that this be posted to the Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard for a more indepth discussion. My unblock request discussion may be almost over however mine will not be last Standard Offer request. ~Technophant (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to a second opinion about the edit filter - as I hinted, I'm (after some delay) just the messenger. Every edit filter is checked against every edit to the wiki, which makes personalised filters in a word costly. Let me also add.. this involves unblocking you. Reblocking you if you were to violate the terms of unblock is incredibly easy, using WP:ROPE it's not an issue at all. This makes the filter somewhat moot, and boils the issue down to a basic unblock with conditions. I'm probably the wrong person to ask about that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 26 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


Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has a large number of related articles:

Technical and other problems

With regards to your email:

  1. I can not help you with your technical problem (as it is not something I have encountered). If you are unblocked that is an obvious question for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or one of the other pages mentioned there.
  2. If any other member of your family/household edit Wikipedia then I suggest very strongly that you approach them and advise them to follow the guidance giving in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address immediately.

-- PBS (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest that you loose the black banner from the top of this page that says "...Wikipedia for an undefined period of time." as you are clearly around and about. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
PBS I changed my status. I wasn't expecting to get back so soon however I may need to "go away" again perhaps tomorrow. My account security was compromised and I can't change my watchlist token. I'm checking more closely that the certificates for SSL pages are correct and have a good path. ~Technophant (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW: The problem with my four ~ signature simply leaving the date that you pointed out in on my talk page was not my fault. It was part of a bigger problem... I knew something was fishy and when I got a notification saying something like "you have been successfully logged in however your preferences file could not be created" popped up on my screen while I was in the middle of a reading a help page (with no other sessions open) I knew for sure that my account somehow my session had been "spliced" into. How this was accomplished I'm not sure. ~Technophant (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BullRangifer: I would like to suggest that the reason that you couldn't use close/hat templates is because somewhere a "collapse top" (or alias) has been placed without a corresponding "collapse bottom". I searched my entire transcluded section (and AN) but couldn't find the problem. Keep looking, there has to be a solution. ~Technophant (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Get Well soon so you can edit more! Randomstuff207 w (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring sections mentioned in WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant See the section above #Reversal of deleted selected comments relevant to unblock requests in which I wrote at 13:48, 16 November 2014 "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"

Last time this led to your talk page access being rescinded. You are now doing very similar things again:

  1. Revision 09:57, 26 August 2015 "WikiProject Syrian Civil War: archive" -- this removed a section called "WikiProject Syrian Civil War". I can not find it in the archive. Please provide a link to that section in the archive as that section forms part of the WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant discussion.
  2. Revision as of 12:43, 26 August 2015 "restore archived thread". -- Why?
  3. 07:13, 27 August 2015 "add {{User warning-mentalhealth}}, discouraged, more" -- collapsed a section to which WP:AN#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant links.

Aside from these changes to whole sections you have also been changing many other comments. Why do you think your talk page edit privileges were removed last time?

-- PBS (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: I got an email this morning from Technophant saying that he's in the hospital with no computer and can't currently edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: I used collapse to improve readability. I did "archive" a few things, however when a user is blocked the only page they can edit is their talkpage so archiving would need to be done later. Keep in mind that WP:USER says "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Archiving is prefered but not required etc. If I violated USER or REFACTOR in any way it was unintentional. ~Technophant (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

New unblock request

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:

A few weeks ago I started a Standard Offer unblock request on WP:AN. It was going fairly well however I then added some extra comments that lead to a backlash and withdrawal of Support from several users. I was blocked for misusing IP edits (but not sockpuppet accounts) however was NOT blocked for "behavioral issues", personal attacks, or incivility. I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion.~Technophant (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'd suggest leaving it for another 6 months, then re-apply for a standard offer. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (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.

New unblock request #2

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:

It's been over 6 months since I made my last unblock request (or have logged in for that matter). I have not edited enwiki for over a year and think that this block should be finally be lifted without prejudice or delay. I'm a highly skilled editor who has made thousands of valuable contributions over the past decade. Please see my previous unblock requests for more information. ~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regretfully must decline - user never addressed anything raised at AN. SQLQuery me! 04:01, 1 May 2016 (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.


Hi there. You should perhaps fix the first sentence (it's been over...since). Also, even with a standard offer unblock request, you should still provide a reason why you should be unblocked. Stating how skilled you believe you are is not going to help you get unblocked any faster. Good luck.--Atlan (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Atlan. I changed it. I think I left it blank to figure out how long it had been and didn't go back to finish it up. I've gotten rusty at editing. ~Technophant (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You will never be unblocked if you continue this line of reasoning. This is essentially what made me withdraw my support of an unblock the last time.--Atlan (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@User:Atlan I removed the note section, however I moved the informational part into my rationale. ~Technophant (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


I gave you some advice last night on IRC. I saw your request for an e-mail conversation. I prefer unblock requests be handled publicly. If you have private information to add to your unblock then you can post to OTRS. I am going to leave this for another admin to handle. HighInBC 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thank you. ~Technophant (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request

Per your request - I have opened a thread at AN. SQLQuery me! 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any replies that you would like to make towards the concerns at AN? I'd be happy to copy them over for you. SQLQuery me! 03:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Technophant I have "touched" the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer for Technophant so that the conversation is not archived just yet. But you are going to have to address the concerns raised in that section if the unblock request is going to be progressed. Unless you do, there will be no more comments and the bot will archive the section. If that happens your request will probably fail with "no consensus". -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As this thread has run for a couple weeks without input from you - I have closed it without prejudice. Feel free to ask again in the future, but be prepared to address the concerns listed. SQLQuery me! 04:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:SQL, I'm back and I've read the comments at AN. Please restore the archived discussion so I can make comments. ~Technophant (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have done this for you.--Atlan (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Were you planning to make a further statement? If you write it here, someone will copy it to the discussion at WP:AN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SQL, how about this - I complete a UTRS Unblock Request and then I'll notify you when it's ready? I'll get it done this weekend. Thx ~Technophant (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
If you intend to bypass the discussion at AN by going through UTRS (a tactic that will fail), why did you want the thread reopened?--Atlan (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree, after asking for this to be presented at WP:AN, my expectation is that you will have something to contribute - making an end run to make us go look up a UTRS ticket is not productive. — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
An an UTRS tooladmin, I can already tell you that any UTRS appeal for community bans will always be referred to an WP:AN discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Atlan,User:Xaosflux and User:SQL. Please read my reply to xaosflux below. What I meant is I'm going to use make use of the UTRS format to help write a proper unblock request. I'm really disturbed by what's conspiring here. I made my first IP spelling correction way back in 2003. A few years later I decided to take the plunge and create an account. I took the time to read all of the help pages regarding user accounts and how to use them properly and as an experiment I created this account following all of the guidelines to a T, including emailing a checkuser. I also marked it with the alternate account template and intended to use it for religion and theology topics only. I never once used it in an improper way.

It found it too confusing to use a separate account and stopped using it. I continued editing under User:Stillwaterising and continued to build my skills and expand my interests. I've always had a keen interest in medicine and after I joined WP:PHARM and got involved in trying to prioritize our efforts on the most commonly prescribed meds I got involved in doing bulk recategorization and created StillWaterbot to use AWB to help automate some of these tedious tasks. I read that while there's "millions of contributors" there only around 10,000 very active (100+ edits a month) contributors who do most of the work. WP needs all of the talented people they can get and to continue to shun somebody with skills and experience I have to offer and continue to question my honesty and integrity and treat me like cantankerous juvenile is NOT helping to improve Wikipedia. I was hoping to avoid another Standard Offer request and after I put in an unblock request it received no response for several weeks I assumed I had fallen into the dreaded "de facto ban" and stopped checking.

There is an enormous amount of effort spent in trying to detect and block "sock puppets" and almost no effort in trying to train and retain dedicated and experienced volunteers who spend hundreds of hours of their precious time toiling thanklessly to help "improve" a multibillion $ 'non-profit' website who sells access to you labor to search engines including Google while giving NOTHING BACK. Almost every user I knew from 8 years ago (with the exception of the indomitable User:SlimVirgin) have all resigned, often in disgust (TParis).

I'm disabled and essentially home-bound and editing Wikipedia used to give my life purpose. I treat this as a volunteer job and have always approached it with the same respect and professionalism I practice in any workplace. There's no place on Earth you can have coworkers insult you, attack you, undermine you etc. without a way to have the problem resolved by a trained professional human resource manager. Volunteer workers are legally employees and entitled to the same workplace guidelines that apply to paid workers and can even receive workers comp.[http //www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/volunteer-vs-employee-legal-protections-in-california.html] I'm a PERSON not a USER. When people refer to me with the pronoun "they" it's demeaning. There's a presumption of guilt concerning clean start accounts. Not every clean start is used to hide past behavior. Read the second sentence. I quit editing from 2010 to 2012 because I was insulted, threatened (legally), intimidated, and had an attempted outing by not another user, it was from a senior staff member! (more on that later...)

I was hoping to continue to build my skills and reputation and somehow get a minimum wage work at home job doing maintenance tasks. The Foundation could afford to pay every admin a living wake for their admin work and not even make a visible dent in their bottom line.

I'll get off my soap box now. I'm exhausted and dealing with all of this has been very upsetting. ;-{ ~Technophant (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to your current block. While I sympathize with any medical issues you may have, they do not give you a free pass for bad behavior. If you find the use of the singular they demeaning, then that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. I usually refer to you as "he", but I am in fact not sure if you are male.--Atlan (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

User:Jusdafax "The socking is too recent?" I was blocked a year and half ago! ~Technophant (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying that you haven't edited either with an account or IPs anywhere besides your talk page for a year and a half? I don't know much about your history, but the block log of a main account rarely tells us much about when the account last socked as an account indef blocked for socking rarely has the log annotated upon further socking, there's little point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I am seeing little contrition and a lot of defiance. The question above is quite reasonable. Dennis Brown also had concerns. How about addressing the community? Vanishing isn't the answer, either. Jusdafax 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne and Uer:Jusdafax. Please read the block log more carefully. While there is a log entry from August 2015 by [User:Bishonen] it's there because he restored my talk page access upon my request. With saying that there's "little contrition and a lot of defiance" there's an implication that I'm purposely trying to distort the facts of this case to mislead and that simply isn't true. This is very complicated case with lots of pages of discussions to wade through before you even begin to understand what I've gone through. Please AGF and retract your comments. I'm not a liar and I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything. I've have a history of over a decade of solid dedicated edits made with highest degree of integrity and professionalism. It pains me to see all of the skills I've learned and reputation be completely disregarded and labeled a sockpuppet and given the ultimate punishment simply because I had made one IP edit while logged out.

Everybody I know has told me to forget Wikipedia and move on with my life and I've followed the rules and refrained from creating a new account. I could have easily gone ahead and done so and enjoying the rights that ANYBODY who takes 30 seconds to register is granted without any verification. Even now I'm feeling very upset that I'm still not able to edit and the possibility that even after I've jumped through all of the hoops and have had my account restored I still will not have the rights and privileges (ie AGF, don't bite) that are inherently granted to any auto-confirmed account. ~Technophant (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • User:xaosflux. What I'm planning on doing is using the UTRS format for creating an unblock request (why are you blocked, what you intend to do, etc) to write a proper unblock request. I said I was going to have it done this weekend however with the torrent of negativity, mistrust, and hastily formed conclusions I'm very upset right now and need to disengage. Please please please send me some wikilove. I'm a good editor who has made over 10,000 edits, has participated in numerous policy discussions, has advanced skills in Mediawiki and still has a passionate love for the Project. I've had a really long weekend and I'm asking that I can get a full night's sleep before I work on this more. ~Technophant (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You're either missing my point or being intentionally invasive. Neither are good for your chances of being unblocked. As I already said, the block log of this account is irrelevant to the question being asked. The question being asked is whan you last socked. You could have answered this question in 2 sentences or less rather than complaining about negativity, mistrust or hastily formed conclusions, since I've simply asked you to answer a simple question relevant to your block and haven't said anything particularly negative nor came to any conclusion until now (when you gave such a poor reply). Bringing up mistrust is a little silly, if I didn't trust you may tell the truth, I wouldn't have bothered to ask. Since socking was acknowledged including with IPs before my response, the question of when you last socked was highly relevant to your block. And as I already said, the block log of this account tell us little about when you last socked whether with accounts or IPs because your block log is generally not updated everytime you sock if you have already been indefed. Likewise, not sure why you bring up WP:AGF as it's also irrelevant. We can't AGF when you fail to answer the question and the fact I asked is an indication I was willing to AGF. Just to repeat one more time, the block log of this account is irrelevant to my question, as I explained in my first reply and explained at the beginning of this reply. The only thing relevant to my question is when you last socked (which would include any editing outside your talkpage while blocked, whether with accounts or IPs). If this only happened once after you were blocked (even if relatively recent) as your comment on IP socking and accounts sort if implies, you're free to explain that as well. P.S. From what I can tell, no one has ever denied that you were blocked in 2014. Definitely I was well aware of this when replying and also knew that the 2015 was simply restoring talk page access. P.P.S. I'm sure your history is spread out over many pages. This is a big part of the reason why I asked you rather than trying to find out myself. All it required was a simple explaination and I may have supported your unblock unless either it was too bad or someone presented evidence to the contrary. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, you've gotten our attention and there are (or at least were) many people ready to hear you out, of the items you mentioned above the "what you intend to do" part you mentioned is what is really needed. — xaosflux Talk 10:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm less concerned about the sockpuppetry than the behavioral issues before and after the block. Still, Nil Einne's is a fair question to ask and a simple answer would have sufficed.

You like to describe yourself as some kind of editor-savant with 10 years worth of sterling edits, and that we keep you blocked to the great detriment of the encyclopedia. The reality is that in 2014, your behavior was extremely poor. You received a topic ban from alternative medicine after only 4 days of editing there. You proceeded to evade this ban pretty much straight away and was then blocked. A few months later you were also banned from Syrian civil war and ISIL and you proceeded to evade that ban as well. You banned all but the most obsequious of editors from your talk page (pretty much everyone that didn't applaud the continuous brilliance streaming from your keyboard). You accused another editor of issuing a death threat and stuck to that accusation, no matter how many people told you it wasn't. Finally, you sent an e-mail calling the addressee a "sicko" and had both your talk page and e-mail access removed. And now here we are. So my question is, what do you intend to do differently in the future? Rather than simply state you haven't evaded your block, I would like to see more of a commitment to not be an impossible editor to deal with. Your current responses to some very reasonable questions here, do not inspire me with confidence.--Atlan (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking for this request to be closed.~Technophant (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

The experience I had last month isn't one I would like to repeat. It's not unlike a mock trial held in Russia. I'm held in this cage while accusations and charges are made against me however I'm denied a microphone and unable to respond. I could "shout" a response on my talk page however many people won't read it. It's inherently unfair and inappropriate.

I would like to propose the following change to the procedure: After a Standard Offer request is initiated, the admin who receives and verifies the request is valid starts a tread on AN then grants a conditional unblock to the user with the condition that they may only edit their own talk page and the relevant thread. The user should also be notified by email.

The discussion would proceed as usual. With hundreds of eyes on the account an infraction on the ban would be quite unlikely and certainly noticed. The benefit would be that the user would be able to fully participate in the conversation and address all concerns, a right that is given in any other circumstance. The risk to the project is minimal and easily repaired. I would like this proposal to be discussed. Thank you. ~Technophant (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Regarding your change proposal, I don't think that is a good idea as standard verbiage. I am fairly supportive allowing constructive participation in appeal discussions, but a blanked release of "own userspace" is excessive. We don't really want blocked users working on POV forks, using Wikipedia as a webhost, or anything else unproductive that could be in user supbages. (This is not in reference to you specifically, just in general). If you have an unblock request that is being ignored, you may also try to make use of Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System - as it will deliver your request to another set of volunteers. — xaosflux Talk 14:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 2: that UTRS comment was also mostly in response to "general" changes. In your specific case, I don't see that an appeal is impossible - but that it will be one of the "slow" processes around here. — xaosflux Talk 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Xaosflux. Yes, UTRS is the best way to do this. I hadn't really intended to start another standard offer request. I was just testing the waters to see if I could get a regular unblock request. Yes, this is indeed a slow process. Re proposal: I hadn't considered those possibilities. Since this request hasn't been submitted yet I changed "edit their own userspace" to "edit their own talk page". ~Technophant (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I rarely have any problem with an editor being unblocked to allow them to participate in their unblock request provided it's clear that's all allowed (well and anything else normally allowed on editor talk pages). If editors don't respect the terms, it generally means we have a simple response to the unblock request. An exception would be any editor who has a history of annoying vandalism, or outing, BLPvios etc where even if these problems are caught, it's preferable we just don't allow them, but that doesn't apply here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne. Vandalism and BLPvios are easily repaired. Outing and personal attacks aren't. Anybody who is truly determined to sock will continue creating accounts and using IP edits despite best efforts to stop them. If these things have truly stopped and the person makes a sincere request to come back they still deserve a second chance don't you think? ~Technophant (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Repairing" doesn't undo the damage caused by calling some a paedophile or distributing someone's fairly private home address or phone number or whatever other BLP vio. Frankly, the fact that you think personal attacks are a more serious problem than BLPvios makes me think even if you are unblocked, you shouldn't be let anywhere near BLPs, but that a discussion for another time. Edit: I noticed you made a big deal about how you're a person above. I agree entirely and always try to remember there's a person behind an account/IP. But I also remember there's a person who's affected by a BLP. For someone like Barack Obama or Taylor Swift or Paris Hilton etc, they deal with so much stuff that realisticly, short term stuff on wikipedia is no big deal. But isn't the case for relatively unknown people (sometimes people who may not even be notable enough for an article). There's no reason why editors should be treated as sacrosanct because they are people, but non-editors can be simply told "shit-happens" when we defame them or reveal private info or whatever other BLP vio. Even if these people never become aware this happened, this doesn't negate our duty to do our best to avoid it. And if that means expecting someone to deal with an unblock request on their talk page or by email because we fear they may ignore the terms of a limited unblock, so be it. Remember of course, such an unblock is going to be granted when we haven't actually heard much to reassure us that none of this is going to happen.

Anyway, there's also no reason why we should need to remove 50 penis pictures all over the encyclopaedia or whatever other random vandalism (nor that people should have to see this crap that they don't want to see). And the fact that more dedicated trolls may get around such blocks is no reason why we should risk unblocking an editor when there's a resonable risk they may take it as an opportunity to carry out such nonsense.

Also I suggest you reread my comment. I never suggested anyone didn't deserve a second chance. What I did say is that in a limited set of cases which don't apply here, I would not approve an unblock to discuss an unblock or ban. People who've been blocked have (normally) rightfully lost their rights to edits. Editing privileges may be granted back if we are confident enough they've reformed and aren't going to return to their previous problems. But it's entirely resonable that they will need to put up with the limitations of making their unblock/unban request (i.e. earning their second chance) only on their talk page, or even only by email, depending on what they've done in the past. If they are unable to do so, then frankly it's unlikely they've reformed enough to be trusted to come back.

In other words, granting a limited unblock to discuss a unban/unblock should be thought of as a special privilege granted when we are resonably confident the person isn't going to waste more time than we should have to spend due to their failure to abide by the terms of the limited unblock. Not some sort of right, as those people have already lost their rights to edits, we can presume correctly so otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I would add I said "personally" for a reason. I know quite a few people don't agree with me and rarely, if ever, would agree to an unblock a person to allow them to participate in their unban/unblock request even if we believe the person would obey the terms of this limited unblock. From my POV, it's relatively harmless, so why not? That said, ignoring the controversy about granting such a request, from my experience those who speak too much in an unblock request tend to harm their chances. So I expect most people asking for it are more likely harming their chances of being unblocked. Still I don't see this as a reason to deny it either. It may mean a little more community and admin time wasted, but then again if a person talks themselves out of an unblock that would have been granted otherwise, well maybe that's actually better for the community.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The above proposal to change the procedure for dealing with Standard Offer requests seems to be generally acceptable. I would like it to be posted to proper place to be discussed, which is probably AN because that's where these offers are discussed. Thank you. ~Technophant (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You are blocked and despite discussion at AN could not persuade the community that you should be unblocked. We won't proxy-edit on your behalf to change policies when you aren't even welcome to edit content. Huon (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Huon: it does truly stink that I'm blocked right now however I do still feel like I have a connection to this community. I've made over 10,000 edits, and quite a few are proposals, changes to help pages, and a change to an important guideline that's used on a daily basis [16]. It's a good change, and important change, one that's relevant to my appeal and the appeal of many others. If I have the right to start a standard offer I should also have the right to petition a change to this process. It surprises me that an admin would respond this way. ~Technophant (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:xaosflux, you seem to support my proposal and also happen to be an admin. Could you please present this proposal on AN for me? Thanks. ~Technophant (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while you are blocked the only thing I would copy for you would be as part of the dispute resolution process that is related to your block. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, even if someone were to copy it, it would be quickly rejected coming from a blocked/banned editor. I'm not even sure that this belongs at WP:AN, it seems it WP:VPP or WT:Civility or something like that would be the right place. BTW, if you do plan to appeal sometime in the near future, you should also seriously consider the effect of this sort of stuff on your chances. Editors recently asking for others to proxy for them rarely goes down well in an unblock request. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Other things

@QuackGuru: Way to go Quack with User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. I especially like the idea of paid superadmins. It's similar to an idea I proposed back in 2010. ~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16810 was submitted on Nov 01, 2016 14:27:10. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request 2019

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:

I would like to make another unblock request. I have a block for sockpuppetry and topic ban in alternative medicine. I've made 3 unblock requests, detailed on my last archive page.

As per Standard Offer, 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. If I choose to contribute to controversial topics, I will respect consensus, and make proposed changes in talk pages. I haven't edited in a long time, almost 4 years, and I don't expect to go back to being a frequent contributor. The quality of most pages is very good and there's little that needs to be changed. What makes me want to have privileges again is seeing out-dated or incorrect pages and wanting to make suggestions. If I get back into trying substantial revisions I would focus on start and stub pages.

Asking for admin help to get this request in compliance and placed on the notice board.-Technophant (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. I have copy-pasted your request here where the community will discuss it; if there's a consensus to lift the block, I expect that will be done without you needing to use {{unblock}} again. Sorry that the response for the copy-pasting was so slow. Huon (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2019 (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.

Huon, acknowledging that I'm following this by means of talk page email notifications. The link for the AN section is here. My old userpage is [[17]] My request was made 3 weeks ago. Is there a reason this is taking so long? Technophant (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I will also try to answer some questions I expect will come up: "What has changed and what will you do differently?" More than 3.5 years have gone by and my body is more than half way through replacing all of my cells <jk>. A lot has changed. I spend less time on the computer. I've moved to from San Antonio (boring) to Austin (exciting). I'm learning how to play new musical instruments and almost finished with my demo. I've gone through many years of therapy and programs and a good deal calmer. "Are you appealing the topic ban or just the block?" Both. I had some ownership issues with the acupuncture page because I used to keep it updated with my earlier username. I was dismayed to find that it had been taken over by what seemed to be a cabal of users who had an agenda. I accept that acupuncture lacks scientific evidence of effectiveness, however, it's also being widely recommended as an effective alternative to opioid use. As with all articles, there needs to be a focus on accuracy, formatting standards and presentation without bias. "What are the top 3 topics you intend to edit?" Science and techology, music and musical instruments, and history of the United States. Technophant (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Usually someone looks at requests in a timely manner, and copying this over should have been easy enough, but there's no guarantee since we're all volunteers and there's currently quite a backlog of open unblock requests. I found it when trying to close some of the oldest ones. So the reason why this took so long likely is "a combination of bad luck and overworked admins". Huon (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I need an experienced editor's help to update my AN unblock request for me. I am restricted to talk page only. BTW: doing this is not considered wp:proxying. ty Technophant (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll copy it over. These type of things can take a little time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

Hello Technophant, following the discussion at WP:AN your account has been unlocked per Special:PermaLink/886794600#Unblock_request_by_User:Technophant. As part of the unblock condition, Technophant may not edit logged out (as an IP user). Technophant may only use additional accounts that are clearly labeled as alternative accounts for good faith reasons (such as an AWB account, or creating a bot account). The existing topic ban remains in place, and may be appealed following 3 months time from now and at least 50 non-minor mainspace edits. (The general consensus above is that there should be both a wait and a trial period, actual edits are required to demonstrate this. Welcome back, — xaosflux Talk 16:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

xaosflux Great. Thank you.Technophant (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant/Archive_6&oldid=953948769"