To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policyedit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Warning: if you continue to violate the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy by adding unsourced negative information about living persons in the Targeted Individual article, I will report the matter - which will undoubtedly result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on File:Targeted Individuals indigo ribbon.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sjö (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do not modify comments from other users. If you do so again, your account will be blocked immediately. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you modify other editors' comments further, your block will be extended and your talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on User:Clinicallytested/Targeted Individual requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I suggest that you stop wasting people's time by repeatedly recreating the 'Targeted Indiviual' article - it is abundantly clear that this material will never be accepted as an article, and we don't have unlimited patience. If you wish to promote conspiracy theories, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Note: You are recreating content that has an established attribution history. But using a copy/paste of that content, you are claiming all of the edits as your own. This is a violation of site license which states that all attributions must by in the article history, no matter how small.
To get restoration of the original attributions and the original text, please submit a request at WP:UNDELETE to have the material userfied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be copy/pasting if i could undelete, but unfortunately some admin deleted it. By the way, are you sure wikipedia gives you admins the right to delete user's sandboxes? It's crazy in a way. It's just a sandbox. So now i'm supposed to "submit a request at WP:UNDELETE to have the material userfied"? Ok.
A copy/paste that violates copyright and sites license can be deleted regardless of which userspace it resides. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
That sounds slightly crazy to me. Isn't it that all material published on wikipedia is free for all to modify and copy/paste? Anyway, the first part of the article comes from my editing.. Am i supposed to copy/paste only my part and ask the original editor to add his/her?
All material contributed to Wikipedia is released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL license (which is stated and linked under the edit box anytime you edit a page). These licenses allow for re-use of the material, within certain key restrictions. Among these restrictions is included that the material must be attributed to the original contributor(s) of the material. This is part of the reason every article has a "history" tab. By viewing any page history, you can see the specific contributions by each editor. However, if you do a copy/paste, that history is gone, so that limitation of the site license is violated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Note: restoring the copy/paste in your user space would still be a violation. To be restored, you would need to request the article at Targeted Individual be undeleted by an admin (who can un-delete most things that have been deleted), and to then have that moved into your userspace.
However, there appear to be additional issues brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion which would prevent undeletion. To get that content and related history restored, you will need to discuss over there how you plan to resolve the concerns and to eventually improve the article into something that can meet Wikipedia content requirements. Afterall, Wikipedia is not a free web-host; just because it is your user-space, does not give you free-reign to create content that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The existing consensus on the article talk page is clearly against the addition. Continued editing against community consensus can be viewed as vandalism and result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't look so.
If you are looking for an indefinite block, you are going about it the right way. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of idiotic conspiracy theories, and it will not become so, no matter how many times you ignore policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Clinicallytested, you seem to engaging in an WP:EDITWAR with other editors. Can you please stop, and discuss this on the talk pages of the articles in question until there's a resolution on this, or I, or some other admin, will find it necessary to block you from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent editing history at Electronic harassment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
You have now been blocked for edit warring. You are welcome to return when the block ends, but please do not resume this disruptive editing pattern, or you are likely to be blocked for longer periods. or indefinitely if need be. Please also note the WP:CIVIL policy, continued violation of which is also likely to get you blocked from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
On review of your recent edits, I've now extended your block. given your editing of other users' comments and sustained and persistent incivility. -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm Smalljim. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Fitna (film) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —SMALLJIM 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
My bad. Edit: english is not my first language. (Clinicallytested (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Given your past history, and the warning you were given when you were previously blocked (" Any more misbehavior from them, and an indefblock is on the cards") I suggest you stop trying to spin the article into something it isn't yet again. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of delusional conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electronic harassment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have already been blocked once for edit warring. I suggest you take your proposed changes to the article's talk page. Kolbasz (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
There's no consensus on that minor edit I made. I did not affect the existing consesus which revolves around the idea that the claims of electronic harassment are products of mental illnesses. I did not cross the consensus. I would have first discussed it on the talk page if I did. Also, I only reverted twice and everytime I did point to the references on which the consensus is based on. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Your recent editing history at [[:Talk:Electronic harassment]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on wikipedia yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." I told you in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010). You are continously pushing an unverified point of view which means you are being disruptive. Thus, kindly avoid threatening me on my talk page and loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia. Thank you Clinicallytested (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
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).
Did you even look at what happened? I commented very clearly what happened at the noticeboard. What's the problem then?
Decline reason:
That's not a valid reason to do what you did. The policy is very simple: don't edit war, even if you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
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.
Sure did. I even have the article on my watch list, so I'm familiar with the edit warring from the previous days. If you feel that you are being harassed, you can seek assistance at ANI. Repeatedly reverting several editors simply because you feel you are right is simply going to result in a block. The opposing position is reasonable, and you'll need to persuade the other editors that your edit is correct. This does not appear to be something you've been successful at in the past; it may be a good idea to adjust your approach. As it is, I presume that if unblocked you would immediately resume your edit war, so there is little chance that I will undo this action. Kuru(talk) 18:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
You are so wrong. The burden to prove an edit is not on who reverts. Their opposing position is reasonable? Then why not prove it by addressing my concerns on the talk page? They can't address my concerns, thus they need to game the system (which they did successfully through you). You just condemned the victim and agreed with the perpetrators. Read again my comment at the noticeboard and address my concerns instead of blindly taking their side:
"Wikipedia is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on wikipedia yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". I suggested in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment as per its definition, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010) and has never been part of the Psychology project. You guys have been tagteaming in order to elude the three-revert rule which means you're WP:GAMING, and are continously pushing an unverified point of view, and all these mean you are being disruptive which is such a no-no. Kindly avoid loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia".
Avoid counterarguing that the longevity of something is not a good reason for suggesting they should rationally reach consensus on the talk page. My mention of the longevity is just a corollary to their aggressive pushing of an undemonstrated POV and prolonged tagteaming (WP:CIRCUS). The reason they are supposed to move on the talk age is that I stated reasonable concerns in the edit summaries. Also read again my edit summaries:
16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673653045 by SPECIFICO (talk) that's not a good reason - you need to put things in context on the talk page - I see bad faith"
14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673637942 by Dbrodbeck (talk) harassment is punishable by law - the prominent view of WP:RS is unalignment thus why it's part of the Crime project (since 2010 by the way)"
14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673616699 by Kolbasz (talk) the WP:RS revolve around a purpoted crime - did you read at least the first sentence of the page? - quit this ridiculous POV pushing"
If you are willing to be rational addressing my concerns as I just did with yours drop a line and make sure to be equipped with some self-criticism, otherwise don't assume I have any time to play your little kafkian game on wikipedia. Clinicallytested (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
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).
I think I'm in a kafkian game here regarding my block, but I'm going to appeal anyway. Why "kafkian"? Because I was falsely attributed fallacies via distortions of the events and quibblings, and exactly like in a writing of Franz Kafka authorities are involved (the administrator who blocked me, and the other one declining my first appeal). First of all, blocked for 3 months? Isn't 3 months too much for what I'm purpotedly guilty of? And what about the admin who blocked me suggesting that I was complaining about being harassed by the other editors when I was clearly referring to the article's subject (Electronic harassment)? This is what I mean by kafkian game.. Oh.. and what about the admin denying my first appeal reasoning with "The policy is very simple: don't edit war, even if you're right."? Like if it's not known that quibbling is not admitted (WP:TAGTEAM, WP:GAMING)? I did already write it is a case of tagteaming and gaming the system, both at the noticeboard and on the first appeal. The case was not about "I think I'm right to revert, who cares about the rules", but about editors tagteaming and gaming the system. I wouldn't have violated the three-revert-rule just because "I think I'm right..". I rightfully ignored the 3-revert-rule according to WP:IGNORE.
The admin blocking me wrote he/she was following the debate of the previous days on the talk page. Well then, let's look at all this with a wider prospective: this is good, as being narrow is never beneficial, and especially because it's of utmost importance to look at the history that lead to my sanction, both to corroborate this appeal and to understand what is going on with the Electronic harassment article (which are complementary). My block resulted from violating the three-revert-rule on the argument if Electronic harassment should be part of the Crime Project or not. I clearly and politely suggested in the Edit summary that the best way to resolve this is by discussing it on the talk page. My point of view was (and still is) that the WP:RS are overall unaligned (and I did state this too in the Edit summary), in the sense Electronic harassment is described as a conspiracy theory about a crime, nothing more nothing less. It's not described as a mental illness, although it is suggested it may be. Just like it's not described as a crime, but suggested it may be. This is what the references state overall. Oh, and just to make things clear, what I'm suggesting is not to violate the WP:FRINGE guideline, I'm suggesting to recognize that the the references define Electronic harassment as a conspiracy theory (all conspiracy theories look implausible).
It's not clear why these editors need to mock it and it's astonishing the amount of time this article has been left contradicting its own references (WP:UNDUE). On a side note, I find it so very meaningless to dismiss claims of a crime supposed to emulate mental illnesses, as a mental illness. This article is all about the mental health professionals' version when in fact the references give about the same weight to the truthfulness of the claims. And I invited them to prove me wrong with so many efforts on the talk page but they were just too biased. Maybe there's just something I'm missing here: aren't the articles supposed to represent the weight given by the references?
I did research this topic for a couple of years. I admit I also used non-WP:RS though (but still I believe the WP:RS are not aligned the way the article is written). I did read a lot about it, and watched alleged victims' video testimonies. I even spoke with them face to face, and the impression I got is all but a mental illness. So I was (and still I am) very surprised when I realized that regular wikipedia editors are not able to write a fairly unbiased article, given also that they had so many months, actually years, and a few honest contributions intended to improve it. The point about my block, is that it's not me the one at fault here. The point is that there's a twisted fashion (not only on wikipedia by the way) about debunking conspiracies. It revolves around the following: it's acceptable to trash every single policy and rational discussion to mock a conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter what the references say, neutrality, verifiability are of no concern. If you are doing it to mock a conspiracy theory, YOU ARE FINE.
I don't know why it is so: maybe because it reflects maturity (sort of "how can you still believe in Santa Claus?")... but doesn't honesty reflect maturity too? I just don't get it. I'm also attracted to debunking (who isn't?), but I don't let my personal bias kick out my reasoning, let alone if I'm writing for an encyclopedia. I think the editors disagreeing with me, let their personal bias take over, thus giving their personal weight. The problem is they are too blind to notice they did, because I tried so many times to invite them to discuss the references, but they simply stonewall. Then I thought: "if they honestly think they are interpreting the references correctly, why do they stonewall discussion???" Am I supposed to see bad faith at this point? Is it that they are acting this way because they know they are following together this twisted fashion of mocking it? Is it that it builds self-righteousness between them, it reinforces their self-confidence, just like what happens in bullying?
I hope I'm not gonna be accused of personal attack now, because although this looks like it, in reality it's the best way that I can think of to expose the issue in order to improve the encyclopedia, which is the higher and only end (WP:HERE). You have to put things in context: I'm the one wrongly blocked for 3 long months, they are the ones being disruptive, and the admins failed to recognize all this. I feel no good about attacking on a personal level.
This conspiracy theory is not like the "9/11 is an inside job" theory, where all the WP:RS overall agree on refusing it: almost every time the mainstream view about 9/11 is about the official version. While on the other hand, almost every time the mainstream view about Electronic harassment is presented as either a sophisticated (to the point it's hard to believe) covert unlawful activity, or a mental illness: overall there's no bias in terms of conspiracy theory (again, all conspiracy theories look implausible). Yet these editors want the article to describe it as a sure mental illness, and even belittle the phenomenon I would say (check the very well written and sourced edits of Bachcell in the first months of 2015 that got reverted even though they did support the mental illness version).
How is it that the opinion of a few mental health professionals became the undeniable truth on which to base the entire article? You may want to know that misdiagnosing claims of criminal activities as delusional, is a common mistake in mental health care, and it's known as the Martha Mitchell effect. And what about this (which I'm pointing to, both to prove the bias towards mental health professionals' diagnoses against private citizens' claims, and the bias towards regular editors against newcomers)?
A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.
A moment before being blocked someone on the talk page argued that Electronic harassment shouldn't be in the Crime Project because neither Alien abductions is. Oh really? When did it become mandatory for non-humans to adhere to law? Alien abductions' article itself is written with much less bias against the claims, although I think it's fair to agree that the mainstream view is a lot more aligned on their implausibility. It's kind of funny what someone wrote recently on a talk page (can't remember if his/her own talk page or wherever): that the regular editors claiming ownership of the article accuse newcomers of pushing the delusional theory that a mental illness is in fact something really happening, when indeed it could be said that THEY are pushing the delusional theory that something really happening is in fact a mental illness.
The technologies claimed to be used are belittled as fictional, obsolete, delusional, but there's nothing "obsolete" (this is the term used on the article) in Voice-to-skull, which is just the US military designation of the Microwave hearing effect (the scientifically proven transmission of sound at the speed of light, including speech, from a distance and without a receiver). Would you argue the Wheel is obsolete just because its invention goes back thousands years? The bias of the Electronic harassment article is almost laughable. How about this source? Are the Dailymail and the President of Russia reliable enough to conceive the factuality of these technologies?
Electronic harassment was not supposed to be removed from the Crime Project, and I acted for the good of the encyclopedia. And of course, the bias of the article should be corrected. Clinicallytested (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
To quote from your unblock request: "I rightfully ignored the 3-revert-rule according to WP:IGNORE..." Wrong. If, after this block ends, you resume edit-warring and adding WP:FRINGE nonsense to Wikipedia, your next block will be an indefinite one. There are lots of free blogging platforms out there for your topic. You are wasting your time here. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
..there's a twisted fashion (not only on wikipedia by the way) about debunking conspiracies. It revolves around the following: it's acceptable to trash every single policy and rational discussion to mock a conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter what the references say, neutrality, verifiability are of no concern. If you are doing it to mock a conspiracy theory, YOU ARE FINE.
I did invent nothing, this is what it is: you are following the trend of being derogatory about conspiracy theories. When indeed, even according to wikipedia (no need to mention reliable dictionaries) a "Conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful".
I think the lede sentence should be something like: Electronic harassment is a conspiracy theory about the use, most oftenly ascribed to rough government officials, of Directed-energy weapons to covertly harass and torture.
And the whole bias of the article should be shifted towards undue weight (the claims have the same weight as the mental illnesses diagnoses). Clinicallytested (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
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.
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).
I'm asking my last appeal for unblock to be re-examined in light of both the edits and replies I made. I really feel that my block was an error, and that at the very least I deserve my clearly detailed arguments to not be stonewalled. Clinicallytested (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
The only arguments of any value, when you've been blocked for edit warring, are either "I wasn't edit warring, here's why", or "I was edit warring, and I will immediately stop doing so". You've made neither of these arguments, and as such, the block stands. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
How can you say my argument wasn't "I wasn't edit warring, here's why"? That's exactly what my argument was. The reason my reverts did not constitute edit warring is because the other editors were tagteaming and gaming the system. They were stonewalling my arguments on the talk page since days before actually. They preferred to stonewall my invites to discuss in the previous days and then, on the day of the edit war, they kept stonewalling my invites on the edit summaries and looked (and accomplished) to trap me in the violation of the three-revert-rule. I'm not even willing to accuse them of bad faith (although I did suggest it in a couple occasions before): to be unreasonably over-polite, this is about Cognitive bias. To be wikipedian, this is WP:TAGTEAM and WP:GAMING. Clinicallytested (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
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.
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).
Is any admin going to recognize my block was an error? Is any admin going to recognize that I tried all my best according to the policies to invite the other editors to discuss and that instead they kept voluntarely stonewalling (essentially, stonewalling means voting, WP:NOVOTE)? Is any admin going to recognize, at least reading these appeals for unblock, that my argument at the noticeboard was valid afterall? I can understand the subject is keen to Cognitive bias but does this justify what has, and still is, happening? I can also understand it requires quite some time of reading to akwnowledge the tagteaming taking place but again, does this justify what has, and still is, happening? I'm acting according to WP:HERE, for the good of the encyclopedia. It's not even that I'm the only one arguing the bias is wrong (WP:UNDUE), have you checked the talk page and especially its archive which, by the way, has been made an archive exactly when I was trying to reasonably discuss the content (which confirms so much of what I'm arguing about the behaviour of the other editors involved)? And what about the fact that in those same days the term "alleged" has been swapped with "purpoted" affecting somehow my argumentations? And what about the very first discussion I opened that got unreasonably closed? That's what I mean by stonewalling, tagteaming and gaming the system. Again, I can understand the subject is keen to Cognitive bias (which is the reason I tried to be very explanatory and inviting) but does this justify what has, and still is, happening? As stated in my second appeal, Electronic harassment is a conspiracy theory about a crime and as such should be described, not as a sure mental illness (all conspiracy theories look implausible, indeed the references give enough weight to the mental illness' theory to contrast the claims). Both my block and the bias of Electronic harassment are wrong. These editors are literally owning the article since a couple of years or so, as dogs own their chew toys: they don't discuss, they just chew and play. But the saddest thing, is the admins are not recognizing all this. Clinicallytested (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
Your block was perfectly justified to stop your edit warring. "They made me do it" is not a valid excuse. Since by now it's abundantly clear that you do not recognize the problems with your own conduct and would immediately resume it once the block expires, I have extended the block to indefinite. I have removed talk page access for the same reason. WP:UTRS is still open to you, but unblock requests like the above won't succeed over there, either. Huon (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Clinicallytested/Targeted Individual requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: 
which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
