Aerozeplyn
Welcome!
|
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 01:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and Wikipedia pages) relating to pseudoscience (particularly including but not limited to medical pseudoscience), broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons given at this ANI complain, your edit warring and disruptive editing in a medical pseudoscience article, as well as denial of the existence of scientific consensus.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban edit
You are topic banned. That means you may not edit or comment on the topic. If you make one more comment on talk:mucoid plaque, you will undoubtedly be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, you have been topic banned, you continued to edit in the banned area, I told you this was wrong, and you continued anyway. You are now blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Guy, I did not realize that the ban included the "Talk" page. As you can see, my only edits were to add discussion to the talk page, where I had reasonable comments along with another supporter who agreed with my reasonable comments. Would you consider unbanning, as I am new to the community, learning, didn't realize the edit ban included the "Talk" page, and have no malicious intent? --Aerozeplyn (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Block edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SportsLair (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Aerozeplyn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- I did not realize that I would be banned for editing the Talk page. I mistakenly believed that it was only the Article page that I was not allowed to edit, and that my proposals should've been brought to the Talk page first. This was an honest mistake.
- My edits on the talk page were to add discussion on the materials for a proposed change; you can read those comments and see that they are reasonable and also agreed upon by another wiki contributor.
- although I am familiar with mediawiki from my job, I am new to the community, learning the guidelines, and my intention is not at all disruption, but to contribute good information. Aerozeplyn (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Again, your topic ban says and has always said "indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and Wikipedia pages) relating to pseudoscience (particularly including but not limited to medical pseudoscience), broadly construed." (emphasis added) It was posted here and on the Administrators Noticeboard (where you responded to it).
The only way you could have not known the ban included talk pages was if you had not bothered reading the ban at all.
The purpose of the topic ban was to give you a chance to learn, in areas where you weren't going to POV-push unscientific ideas. You have, instead, demonstrated an inability to read more than twelve words into what your topic ban covers (if you bothered to read it at all!). Between that and all of your activity clearly being based on a belief that scientific consensus doesn't exist, you have given us no reason for us to hope that you could reasonably achieve the lofty goal of a benign level of uselessness. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 3 November 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.
Aerozeplyn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- "Again, your topic ban says and has always said "indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages," -- This I understand now, but I did not understand earlier. I must have missed the area that mentioned "talk pages", and I completely believed that what I was doing was right. I see now my mistake, and there was never any ill intentions.
- By my history, you can clearly see that I am new, and you can clearly see that I have no intention of benign community behavior.
- Here's my statement: I do believe that scientific consensus exists. Please excuse my miscommunication from earlier, but you have my statement that I truly believe scientific consensus exists. I hope this is obvious...
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Thank you, and I hope I can continue to enjoy, contribute, and have a good experience at Wikipedia!
- "But I did not understand earlier" -- For you to say that... Are your posts being written using a voice-to-text program to hide crippling illiteracy? Is English not your first language or something? Did you just not read it? The topic ban notice could not have been any clearer. Not only that, you were given a warning, which you ignored. This is seriously like saying "sorry, officer, I didn't realize the red octagonal sign with four white letters (the first one being S and the last one being P) was a stop sign, even after someone pointed it out to me and explained what stop signs are." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)