User talk:Technophant - Wikipedia

Technophant is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil and follow userspace guidelines. Due to peronal health issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can Thank one of my edits to trigger an email alert.~Technophant (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw your post on ANI discussing an RFC/U that you had about another editor. You mention on ANI that you have a consensus to topic ban that editor. This consensus is it in the RFC/U? If so I'm wondering if you perhaps missed Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#The_nature_of_RfC.2FUSerialjoepsycho (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Serialjoepsycho Topic ban was not part of the original proposed solutions, it was just the last resort consenssu after the editor refused to cooperate and attacked the nominators. That part was on the rfcu talk page. I took it to requests for close, which has a backlog. I guess it could have been taken to AN. There was a general apathy because the editor had quit editing. I suggest you read the rfcu and talk page.~Technophant (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've read the RFC/U and the talk page. I was just stopping by to inform you that while you may have a consensus at the RFC/U for a ban, A RFC/ U is still a voluntary process and you still can't use it to "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures".Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Serialjoepsycho The RFC/U has been closed for "inactivity". The discussion on the talk page of the RFC/U continues. There's a clear consensus to take this to AN for a topic ban {CBAN}. I am excusing myself from starting any further noticeboard discussion and have asked for help taking getting the proposed CBAN placed. You are an uninvolved editor, would you be willing to close the talk page discussion and take the proper actions to put the proposed sanctions in place?~Technophant (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

My apologies but no I would rather stay uninvolved. Being uninvolved is not helpful in this situation. I'm unaware of what has actually taken place. It would probably be best for you or one of those have endorsed your RFC to take it to ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Serialjoepsycho - English was the only topic in school that I didn't get straight-A's in, and it wasn't for lack of trying - I'm just not very good at spelling, grammar, and vocabulary. Anyway, I was hoping that other users would take my RFC/U draft, expand upon it and copy the content into the WP namespace. That didn't happen (see AN). There's no reason to delete content in userspace, in fact it wouldn't be proper to. If/when the block is lifted I may (or may not) pursue this in the proper way. ~Technophant (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is a good reason to delete content in userspace. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your RFCU against Worldedixor doesn't seem to be a draft. It seems to have concluded and I think it may have been archived. This topic was about that RFCU. The RFC you created below doesn't seem to have intended to be a draft if that is the one you are talking about.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned bare URLs in "Timeline 2" on my Talk page. I have given up on these. I once left a shame list of about 15 on the Talk page and they were gradually reduced, but they keep piling up and I will not convert any more. It is sheer laziness by editors. As the Wikiblame tool is broken, it is no longer possible to tell who the offenders are. When I knew who had left one, I would give them the footnote template I devised, but more often than not it was ignored. I raised this with Dougweller some time ago and he had no solution. I don't know what can be done about this problem. Sometimes an editor will come along and convert some of them using the replacement Reflinks tool, but it is not very good as it leaves out a lot of parameters and the editor will not fill in the missing ones. I don't think Reflinks will return, from what I have read on the Help Desk. I am shocked that there are now 46 bare URLs for the page. The most it ever was before at any one time was about 15. What is the solution? Removing edits when editors have left bare URLs? I would suggest getting an admin to do something about it, but when the editor cannot be traced, nothing can be done. As you noted, they are mostly in the Timeline section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

P123ct1 If I could find a good tool that can handle them quickly I'd work on them more. Doing them manually is very tedious, however I've done quite a few. I think just taking an eventualist (it will be one day be corrected) view is perhaps the best thing to do. With modern news services very few of them will actually "link rot" like they did in the past. I'm thinking that if the Timeline is completely cut out of the main article only perhaps 1 in 1000 casual readers will ever see it and the quality of both pages will suffer.~Technophant (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some months ago I went through all of the footnotes (350 plus) checking they were accurately configured, so that is why I resent cleaning up new bare URLs (there were very few then)! They do get converted eventually by keen editors, but as you say it is very tedious to do now that Reflinks has gone. I am not sure if the new replacement tool collects them before converting or whether you have to use this tool on each one individually. I have been thinking about what you were saying about the Timeline and now agree with you about having some of it in the article. I will note this on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

P123ct1 I took your /My template and wrapped it in {{notice}} and put it in the talk page header here. Note: there's no recursive limit to transclusion. Many templates are based on other templates, which are sometimes build on other templates and/or WP:Modules (more complex hardcoded functions like the core citation function).~Technophant (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

That was a brainwave, but I wonder if editors will pay any attention to it, excuse my cynicism. Could you put the text equivalent of flashing lights round it?! Would it be an idea to put it on the ISIS Talk page as well, or is that already overcrowded? Also, I notice the footnote reminder templates(?) at the head of the "References" sections have disappeared. Would it be in order to restore them, perhaps with a reference to those instructions? Anything to make editors take notice and stop leaving bare URLs. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you work on a shorter version? There may be an objection to a custom template. Perhaps there's already one available.~Technophant (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Technophant: Do you mean a shorter version of the footnote instructions template? I could cut it down by five lines. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Help page issues

P123ct1 yes, but since your User:P123ct1/My template "template" is "live" and being used in several places it's prob best to start a new one. Templates are based on transclusion, so any edit made the the template will change it's use everywhere it is transcluded. It would be better to use WP:substitution instead of WP:transclusion when placing on a userpage. I would suggest copying the wikitext into your sandbox or a new userpage like "/citations" or something perhaps more descriptive but not too "prescriptive" and we can work on it together. I haven't slept in 48 hours. I'm quite tired however I have a lot on my mind. I joined WP:WikiProject Help a few months back because I enjoy rewriting help pages. Surprisingly, my usual minor edits to commonly used template docs, and a small number of minor edits to a few guidelines, essays, and even two policy edits (regarding slurs against persons with disabilities) have not been reverted. You would think that with all the scrutiny on me, and all the people that should be watching, these pages that I would have at least have gotten a comment. I guess I'm doing something right for a change? :-] ~Technophant (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I could change the name of the template after removing the five lines I mentioned, but I can't see how to make it descriptive rather than prescriptive when they are instructions on how to compose a footnote. I will adjust the wording and let you have a copy. I am glad you are working on the help pages; they drive me to distraction they are so bad, vague, missing essential steps in how to perform a function, confusing, etc. I always end up on the Help Desk, and I do mean always. The WP Help needs to be completely rewritten, IMO! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suggested removing not striking as you have done. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@PBS there's no pleasing you, is there? I can't remove my comments unless Gregkaye first removes his own. I've redacted the part that he objected to. I wish I hadn't written anything about the closing and just steered clear. I'm asking you as an uninvolved admin to place a temporary (+2 month) user interaction ban on User:Gregkaye. I will also leave him alone as well, but will may refer to his edits or ideas if the discussion requires it. ~Technophant (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was explicit in what I suggested. But is is of no consequence now because of the second of these comments. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@PBS I would appreciate discussion prior to action, either way, being taken. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS (talk · contribs · logs)

Background: Last week I took Gregkaye to AN/I for disruptive editing (or more accurately WP:TEND. Gregkaye has been hounding me about it every since. Today I this request I made to admin User:Anna Frodesiak and end with the above bi-lateral sanctions ("You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or User talk:Gregkaye for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum.") and connect the dots in between you will see a real disconnect in proportion and logic. PBS has been hostile to me from the start for reasons unknown. What I do know is that this admin is not fair or reasonable in the administrative actions taken.

I only asked for an IBAN against Gregkaye, and considering the circumstance it is a completely reasonable request. I did not contact PBS, Gregkaye did (WP:OTHERPARENT). I'm one of top contributors to ISIL related topics and in good standing with other project members and just yesterday announced the launch of Wikipedia:WikiProject Syrian Civil War which I can't even edit for pete's sake.

Remedy: PBS has a [[[WPCOI:conflict of interest]] in being an "uninvolved admin" regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and related topics. He has acted in the capacity and taken actions that have generated resentments with the top contributors to the article, see RFC/U on talk page re his uni-lateral actions against group consensus re Move Request's and archive for disputes on Archive algo. PBS's action reflect a deep disgust for persons who he views as neutral or supportive of ISIL, a "get out of jail free card" to anti-ISIL editors who are openly trying to sway neutrality and being disruptive.

Also, formal IBAN between myself and Gregkaye should be taken to AN/I and discussed there. I needed to leave hours ago so this is my last edit for several days to perhaps over a week.

Also, I would like there to be an informal IBAN between myself and PBS. He's only caused me grief.... :-(

Section for certifiers

Certifier: ~Technophant (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is not certified.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Corrected "Certified" to "Certifier" above. -Serialjoepsycho-s above remark is obtuse.~Technophant (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you not understand the word obtuse?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Serialjoepsycho I looked it up in the dictionary and apparently I didn't. I meant to say that your remark was terse. I obviously mistook the term certifier and certified. While it isn't certified because there isn't another certifier, it doesn't mean it CAN'T be. There just needs to be another user who certifies it then it should BECOME certified. ~Technophant (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't meet the criteria of a certifier yourself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Serialjoepsycho, again another brusque answer. Why not? ~Technophant (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lose the thesaurus, it doesn't make you sound smart. It does make you sound arrogant. The reason you do not meet the criteria as a certifier is there is no evidence provided that you tried and failed to resolve this dispute. That's a requirement at minimum. Another mistake you made btw is that you attempted to bring sanctions thru this RFCU. This is a voluntary process. The only way you can get an IBAN here is if PBS agrees to it. Hopefully when someone notices this was intended to be an RFCU and it wasn't certified in 48 hrs they will delete it, which would be appropriate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

Unblock redux

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)Reply

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

@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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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

• 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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

• ("try to help techno")

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

• (Blocked again)

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

• (blocked for block evasion)

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

• ("who's Techophant?")

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

• (PBS's comments)

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

• ("try to help, techno"):

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

-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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The Wikipedia of old, as immortalized in the 5 pillars created by Jimmy Wales and a few other free spirits, has been crushed, gone, replaced by a battleground where only the well-connected few succeed. Civility is gone. Ignore all rules (except the five pillars) has been replaced by a confusing word-salad of cryptic acronyms (instruction creep). Neutral point of view has been replaced by "fringe-bashing" articles that pass for encyclopedic. And the most revolutionary, and egalitarian part, of Wikipedia being "free content that anyone can edit" only applies to those who use IP edits and aren't afraid of being reverted mercilessly because they don't conform to the dominant team's point of view.

In addition all editors, and especially admins, should conform to Wikimedia's Foundation polices including Friendly Space Policy and Whistleblower policy. Everybody who volunteers time editing Wikimedia projects are legally considered to be "volunteer employees" and are entitled to all of the protections any volunteer employee in the state of California is entitled to. Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following and failure to treat other people with respect should be ground for immediate termination. Reporting procedures should be clearly posted and easy to complete. Contact Chief Talent and Culture Officer Gayle Karen Young for more information. I used to really really enjoy editing enwiki. Maybe someday the Board will once again take the reigns and get this project back on track.

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

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

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

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)Reply

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

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Islamic State (organization). Since you had some involvement with the Islamic State (organization) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply