Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 112.17.236.73 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing, specifically by making it clear your purpose here is to promote fringe conspiracy theories. Also, recognize that if you were an account, or if you were on a static IP, this block would be permanent. If you return from this block on this or another IP to continue the same behavior, you will simply be blocked again. You may appeal this block by adding the text, {{Unblock|Your reason here}} to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you follow the discussion between Ian.thomson and myself you will see that I raised a legitimate concern about the article which he repeatedly ignored and misrepresented forcing me to repeat it in several different ways. He never did acknowledge my concern. The article claims that the engineering community overwhelmingly dismisses the idea that the World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition. This claim was essentially backed up by one source: a paper by Bazant. I pointed out that there where numerous respectable engineers who support the CD theory. When asked to provide sources I shared a list of links which they dismissed as unreliable. I pointed out that links to those exact same sites were already present on the source page. Ian.thomson continued to use pejorative language and accuse me of peddling conspiracy nonsense while ignoring my points and not responding to me on the merits of what I was arguing. The article still has the claim "the engineering community rejects the CD theory etc" which is not well sourced and in fact not true. I have been trying to correct this with the best intentions. I do not deserve to be blocked. Ian.thomas wishes to have me blocked because he cannot defend this aspect if the article and refuses to acknowledge my point.
Decline reason:
This block was imposed by community consensus after a discussion at WP:ANI. The consensus is that the block on the IP address should be for two weeks, and you are to be blocked on site if you return. That is, you are no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2017 (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.
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The main point is very simple. The article claims that there is a consensus among engineers. They do not have a source to support this claim. No one has acknowledged this point. That is why I have stated it over and over. I have not made disruptive edits.
Decline reason:
An unblock request is not the venue to rehash the arguments that led to your block. Your edits fall wide of consensus in a topic area covered by sanctions; you will need to address the reason for the block as opposed to continuing the same arguments for an unblock to be considered. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:16, 24 February 2017 (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.
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for supposedly making disruptive edits in support of a fringe theory. While there are a few things I said that were not helpful, if you look closely at the exchange between myself and Ian.thomson you will see that my tone remains level while he slings insults at me from the outset while ignoring and misrepresenting my statements. I am not using wikipedia as a platform to spread fringe theories. I am trying to improve the article. I suggested several times a way to improve a section that contained unsupported statements. I do not think Wikipedia should endorse this theory, but it should accurately describe the opinions of the engineering community. This is what I have been arguing. If you look at the page in question you will see that there was a conscious effort to escalate the discussion and ignore my points.
Decline reason:
One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2017 (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.
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is very unfair. No one has explained in what sense my edits were disruptive. No one has acknowledged the main point I was pressing: the article makes a claim without sufficient sources. My purpose is not to promote conspiracy theories but to demand an accurate description of those who promote the CD theory and those who reject it, and to have sources to back up these descriptions. The administrators who have blocked me are either unable to see the difference between these two aims or they are knowingly ignoring my point to prevent intelligent discussions and maintain inaccuracy in this article. Ian.thomson asked my to provide sources for my claims. When I provided sources, he dismissed them as unreliable. I pointed out that these sources were already cited in the article. Most of the exchange consisted of me pointing this out while he ignored that point. How is providing links that have already been used in citations disruptive? How is reiterating a point that has not been acknowledged disruptive? How is requesting better sources for a portion of the article disruptive? Pointing out broken links? None of my behavior was disruptive. I would like another administrator to review this block.
Decline reason:
It is completely fair: you've been warned, you ignored your warnings, you were blocked. I'm not going to try to prove everything to you once again, see the policies you've already been pointed at. I'm revoking your talk page access for a week. This is not a place to continue promoting your conspiracies. Max Semenik (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2017 (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.
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You have not provided me the specifics of which of my comments violated which policies.
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.
- You were told repeatedly and in detail that that you are not welcome to push conspiracy theories here, nor try to present them as some kind of alternative facts. You were told that if you return from the previous block, you would be blocked again.
- To be clear: You, as a person, are not welcome on Wikipedia. We do not want your contributions, we do not care about your complaints, you are a persona non grata. If you cannot understand why, that is your problem. Stay off this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it possible for Wikipedia to describe the situation accurately without "promoting the theory." There was no reason to remove my last edit. The claim has not been properly sourced. If it is true, why not just provide a source?
71.188.115.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for "pushing conspiracy theories." This is not true. I simply pointed out that an important claim has not been substantiated with sources. If it is true, there should be a source for it. Demanding a source is just an attempt to hold Wikipedia to the standards it claims to have. It does not constitute "pushing conspiracy theories." This is pretty obvious, and I would like another administrator to look at this because Ian.thomson is abusing his power.
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.
- Wow, do you ever stop lying or are you just totally disconnected from reality? The article is adequately sourced, you just refuse to accept the authority of any organization that doesn't push your your favorite conspiracy theory. Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_blocked_editors, any edit you make that is not related to appealing your block can be reverted. If you don't think or can't understand that the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, then you are of no use to us. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"Isn't it possible for Wikipedia to describe the situation accurately without "promoting the theory." There was no reason to remove my last edit. The claim has not been properly sourced. If it is true, why not just provide a source?"
- There is the problem. None of the sources that claim conspiracy theories to be true, or cover them are reliable factchecking sources supported by mainstream academia. Therefore it does not get the same coverage that content supported by mainstream, fact-checking sources. To do so would violate WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:FRINGE. Now, you're dangerously close to losing the right to edit your talk page by even having the audacity to pretend that this block is not related whatsoever to your previous behavior. You completely replicated the same exact behavior that led to your original block, and you dare to accuse Ian.Thomson of abusing his administrative privileges. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, a place to grind your ax, nor a place to peddle your conspiracy theories. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a claim that has not been properly sourced - that there is a consensus in the engineering community on the collapse of the WTC. If this claim is true, there should be a source for it. That is what I have been arguing this whole time. I am not saying Wikipedia should promote the CD theory.
You are using circular reasoning in a sense. The article fails to mention some of the more prominent scientific supporters of CD theory. The stated reason is to avoid giving undue weight to a so-called fringe theory. In view of the reality of the well credentialed proponents of this theory, it becomes a bit less of a fringe theory, tho admittedly not mainstream. Wikipedia could document the fact that prominent scientists Lyyn Marguliss, Daniel Orr, (people important enough to have their one wiki pages)support CD theory without being guilty of supporting a fringe theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)
- I've removed your talk page because you're just going to use it as a soapbox to preach the controlled demolition conspiracy theory from by speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Except you keep forgetting that there are no prominent scientific supporters of the controlled destruction theory. Just loonies who have their tin-foil hats on way too tight. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
edit
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at HIV/AIDS denialism.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tendentious behavior on talk page, following warnings on previous articles. MrBill3 (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I don't see what was disruptive about my edit. I am trying to figure out where the article references scientific research
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |