WikipediansSweep

§Bananas contain fiber!

@Bradv: so where have i shown interest in pseudoscientific falsehoods as you have claimed? I'd just like to see the evidence rather than claim. If its Russell I ask on why he is classified as pseudoscientific.

Hello all, I am willing to discuss any of the topics at hand. No one has given me a manual on this, and it seems, by reading below, that no manual exists. So if we can hash it out, I would love to.

Reality is only what you're convinced is "real." A dream world is "real" in that moment, as you can not discern its reality, but the moment you wake up, it is ever so clear it was a dream, baffled at how you never knew it in that moment.

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ironically another term for fringe is cutting edge. That point in which known and unknown meet. (This is not meant in a smart ass way by any means, it is an actual definition of the term fringe and noting the irony of it) WikipediansSweep (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

A case involving you has been filed on the WP:AE noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WikipediansSweep. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to fringe science, including but not limited to Walter Russell.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

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. Sandstein 17:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your arbitration enforcement topic ban from Walter Russell‎, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 22:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Not gonna lie, I originally thought thought the ban on Walter Russell was explicitly for his article, not the talk page. You bet I'm appealing this, I'm sorry but it's absolutely ludacrious. WikipediansSweep (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, your topic ban forbids you from writing about Russell or any fringe topic anywhere on Wikipedia, which includes articles, article talk pages, project pages, other talk pages, your own user pages and user talk page, draft space or anywhere else. The only exception is the briefest mention necessary while appealing your topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Two more things you should be aware of, if you're not already:

• This ban applies to you, not just your account. You may not create or use alternate accounts, and you may not violate this topic ban while logged out.
• One of your friends posted to the talk page on your behalf, here. This is called PROXYING, and it is also not allowed.

That out of the way, you are more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. In fact, the best way to get this topic ban lifted is to demonstrate a history of productive editing in areas unrelated to the problem topic. Once your block expires I'd be happy to provide suggestions if you like. – bradv🍁 02:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I would love suggestions. Hopefully I will find something that I'm as passionate about. Ive been on my ban topic for quite a while as I haven't found one fraudulent claim until I came here. Out of sheer irony, which I find quite hilarious as I don't have any respect for Sylvia Browne, I investigated her fraud claim to see if she was crazy or simply a liar and discovered that she was not truly convicted of fraud as her article stated. So I do like finding things out. WikipediansSweep (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

rereading that made it seem weird WikipediansSweep (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

= Banned Not Saying This

There is a removal of some important info somewhere on here that is limiting the information of the public seemingly out of contempt. I would hate to say ignorance, but to keep it from them is wrong. I point nowhere. It would be beneficial to simply place what was undone done as it contains information unbiased individuals could use. Information is information and not sharing it is absolutely the opposite of what Wikipedia is about.

What is Defined as Fringe or Pseudo?

Are UFOs fringe?

On September 18, 2019, the US Navy disclosed that unidentified "aircraft" capable of maneuvers physics can't explain actually exist. Finally affirming the New York Times famous 2017 article On the Trail of a Secret Pentagon U.F.O. Program and its featured "tic-tac" UFO video. To go one step further, they are called Anomolous Aerial Vehicles(AAV's) by multiple government agencies. Inanimate objects do not operate vehicles. These intelligently moving vehicles are also aware of pilots and radar as shown in the declassified documents obtained by KLAS-TV Channel 8 Las Vegas concerning the "tic-tac" UFO previously mentioned:

CDR Fravor stated he then began a descent with the intention to take a close aboard pass with the object in an attempt to visually identify it. They began the decent as they rolled in from about 10,000ft and approximately 350 knots to take the object close aboard. CDR Fravor pulled nose on and then pulled trail (aft) of the object. As they were maneuvering, the object appeared, according to CDR Fravor: ”to recognize us.” He assessed this from the fact the object "pointed” (realigned it's axis) in the direction of their aircraft At this time, according to CDR Fravor, the disturbance on the water ceased. As they completed this maneuver, the object ascended quickly and pulled lift vector on and aft of them at a supersonic speed. CDR Fravor commanded the radar through the Short Range radar set and asked for a picture from Poison. Poison initially reported that the "picture was clean” (no contact) but then stated “you’re not going to believe this, its at your'CAP” meaning that the AAV had flown to their training CAP, which was located in the southern end of the training area and had climbed to approximately 24,000 feet..

The final analysis was compiled in 2009 and affirms Ex-Pentagon Offical Luis Elizondo's statement that "[AAV's have] technology beyond our current understanding" by concluding:

1. The Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) was no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in the inventory of the United States or any foreign nation.
2. The AAV exhibited advanced low observable characteristics at multiple radar hands rendering US radar based engagement capabiiities ineffective.
3. The AAV exhibited advanced aerodynamic performance with no visible control surfaces and no visible means to generate lift.
4. The AAV exhibited advanced propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude n'ansitioning to horizontal and /or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle with little to no visible signature.
5. The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak’ or become invisible to the human eye or human observation.
6. The AAV possibly demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors.

The Pentagon can not identify metal alloys found in downed craft either. To deny the evidence at this point is beyond reasonable doubt. The only thing that one can do to deny the reality and implications associated with the phenomenon is ignore reason, most likely due to cognitive dissonance.

If this is considered fringe or pseudoscience then I would have to conclude that reason has died.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fringe or pseudoscience, broadly construed, means anything that could possibly be fringe/pseduo is off limits. You should act with caution,and when in doubt assume that it is pseudo science. UFOlogy is definitely pseudo science, and you should be cautious and stay away from it. You can still edit things like regular biographies, landmarks, places, plants and animals, or any of the hundreds of other topics on Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

To be blunt let's just use the definition on here:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

Second we need to define the scientific method:

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science... It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

So how can empirically observing a phenomena (AAV's) and eliminating what it's not be unscientific? For example: Conjecture - AAV's are not real. Evidence - Radar picks up on them with eyewitnesses (military radar like the USS Princeton's). Deduction - Radar evidence eliminates the possibility that it's unreal.

We can follow this line of reasoning quite a ways. Face it, the US Government has deemed them existent and has concluded that they are vehicles with superior capability to our own.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

All the things you've done above are WP:OR, which has no place on Wikipedia. We say what reliable sources say, and reliable sources aren't running out and saying aliens are real and that the government is hiding advanced aerial vehicles. While some science surrounding UFOs is legit, much of it is conspiracy theories, which is why its regarded as a fringe subject. Regardless, you are still topic banned from this area, and even discussing it here is somewhat dangerous for you. If you cannot understand what fringe science is, perhaps you shouldn't be editing anything science related in the first place. When in doubt, assume that it is fringe/pseudoscience. In the meantime, feel free to edit constructively in other areas until you can prove that you understand Wikipedia's policies, and then you could try to lift your topic ban. But until that time, step back and consider why you were banned from fringe topics, and contemplate how you can learn from this experience. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's keep it civil, calm, relaxed, and chilled. Breathing, breathing, breathing, cucumber cool.

Ok, so this is what you said:

"All the things you've done above are WP:OR, which has no place on Wikipedia. We say what reliable sources say, and reliable sources aren't running out and saying aliens are real and that the government is hiding advanced aerial vehicles."

Two things:

1. I never said aliens.
2. This is the title of The Independent article - "UFO videos of mysterious aircraft spotted by military pilots are real, US Navy says."

I think this is why I became so frustrated in the beginning of our relations. I feel you're apt to dismissal as soon as something falls outside of the paradigm you have accepted to be true. So anything that crosses that immediately incites denial with little to no discretion. You could of simply read my words to see I never said alien, nor was I saying anything original. All you had to do was read and verify. So it's like this type of thing hits a nerve that seemingly blinds you from what's in front of you, which is what happens to anyone in that state, me included. So this might provide some insight into the emotional display from me as well. It was a defense against that type of rejection and then applying that ubiquitously to the people you sought to help the situation as I immediately classified them into the same category.

I wrote the alien piece above as an example of a verified, nonfringe, nonpsuedoscience way of articulating facts about a situation which might be deemed, at first, pseudoscience or fringe. Albeit, written with a bit of bad taste from the ban as I would never of included cognitive dissonance, nonetheless those are all reported facts from verified and credible sources and upon scrutiny are hard to deny. Also, on the UFO article here, there's nothing mentioning fringe or pseudoscience, only skepticism, paranormal, alternative views, and aviation/aircraft projects.

I really do not wish to go further though, as I wish for the ban to be lifted. WikipediansSweep (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this block, as the posts above are in violation of your topic ban. When the block expires you will be able to edit this page again, along with any page not related to pseudoscience, fringe science, or Walter Russell. – bradv🍁 22:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Unasked for advice

Dear WikipediansSweep:

I was the one at WP:FTN who suggested the WP:AE that ended up with you banned. Sorry about that. As it is, you may not like me for that, and you didn't ask for my advice, but it seems that no one else offered a particularly clear way forward, so I'm going to tell you how you might be able to proceed: Do something totally different. I see from your first edit that you mentioned Little Rock, Arkansas. I don't know if you know anything about that subject, but, if so, I would suggest adding content to articles related to it (just avoid ones about paranormal, cryptozoological, or UFO-related things, etc., as that would violate your topic ban).

All the Best,

jps (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You're the culprit!

Just kidding xD

I see why I was banned in hindsight, and I see no ill intentions. If anything I see a lack of understanding from my end, as well as, in part, yours(don't take that the wrong way). As in seeing it from my perspective a lightbulb would go off and I would have been assisted in such a way to not implement a ban. But we are human after all lol.

There's plenty I could edit now when I think about it. I am curious as to how long this would take to remove the ban or whether or not I should attempt an appeal.

(Addition: I'm from LR)

WikipediansSweep (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My experience tells me that an appeal right now will not work. Try to edit for six months on other unrelated topics and become a "productive editor". After six months, consider whether you still want to ask for it to be lifted. Be aware that you'll have to explain how exactly you will change tactics to conform with the discretionary sanctions that are on the articles from which you are banned. Best wishes! jps (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that is a long long time. Wow... Okay then... Well I understand exactly why I was banned and I didn't even know what the warnings were and what they entailed. Ironically I thought someone was just copying and pasting something on my talk page just to mess with me lol.

Can you give your 2 cents on the UFO thing though. From what I can see it has no original work in it, unless the mentioning of inanimate objects not driving vehicles is that. Which it shouldn't be considering something out there stating that vehicles don't start themselves. The 6 points are copied from a declassified document. The independent article specifically states that they're unknown vehicles... So if I am erroneous here, elucidate it to me as a learning thing rather than not and say im too dumb too see it and storm off.

Also I have sources on the unspoken topic corroborating everything that was deleted... So I'm unsure of how its not a disjustice to even put them in the talk page. *not what you're thinking of

WikipediansSweep (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep, this post contravenes your topic ban. UFOs are considered pseudoscience, and you are not allowed to discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own talk page. This has been explained to you above. – bradv🍁 03:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What have users done in the past on their own talk pages which have led to this rule. It feels extensive, incredibly extensive. As if a major injustice is occurring is what it feels like, not pleasant at all. Actually has a tangible pain.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic bans are onerous. They just are. The idea is to completely remove you from the topic because the website does not have the filters enabled to prevent WP:GAMEs that have been played around the arbitrariness that topic bans are. So, for example, some users who were topic banned from, say, politics in country YYY would just post complaints about things written on Wikipedia relative to country YYY to their user talkpages hoping that their friends would see it and make edits on their behalf. If you can think of a way to get around the system, guaranteed someone has tried it. Thus, Wikipedia now has an inordinate number of rules that prevent such leeway. They will block for for so much as correcting a spelling or punctuation error in an article... they're that strict. jps (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

it's really weird because somehow this page keeps getting deleted... I just saw these, I have no idea what's going on. But yeah it totally seems like it, I could feel the fury from thousands of past editors trying to say jesus was our lord and savior at the top of the historical jesus page. lol I hope I have rubbed off well on you guys now. I figured it would be something along those lines, but I would also think it wouldn't be very difficult to get off a ban as you can create a new account or something similar. I mean it's like stopping drugs from getting into the country lol, it will find a way. 11:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You could be experiencing a cache issue, but in any case, you're absolutely right that there have been/continue to be ways that people try to start new accounts to avoid scrutiny. "Going rogue" typically does not work very well especially when the person has very easy to identify interests as you do. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've thought about it obviously and it is possible, it would just take patience and time. Funny enough, I called it going rogue too. But I'm really impressed that all the "smart" editors can't find the sources I do... Its kinda repugnant tbh, and really impressive and telling that some dude at editing for a month flies past people with years upon years of editing experience. These are the scrupulous right? If anything it only affirms some pre-held notions. Ironically before I got there it was pretty decent, now it's a pity on the edit baboons who seemingly want to beat the drums to only that which matches there paradigm. "X could never be this!" Like the wicked witch of the West calling in her flying monkeys, each throwing kookoo-nuts. Doesn't seem nice to say, but removing old articles as sources that don't match your pov while leaving other articles that are the same age that do tells a lot. But think about that... how did I find stuff that these guys didn't? Also no need to intimidate on going "rogue" WikipediansSweep (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And I understand the topic as a whole can be a bit out there, even though what I'm sharing is verified, and isn't part of the ban unless CNN etc now report pseudo which we know isn't true.. just the topic then I guess... impressive that an education opportunity is being wasted...

WikipediansSweep (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you envision the topic, it matters how the people who have the block button envision it. You'll have to develop a model for their minds. Sorry, that's just how it is. If you have a good faith query, you can ask one of the admins if it violates your topic ban and they will tell you. jps (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I do believe I have a model of their minds, well it seems to be the general western materialistic consensus hive mind. Like skeptics rule psychics drool, you're a quack, kook, spook, etc. Tbh, that only drives division further and further. I mean if I call you a worthless ****** then how much harder is it for me to swallow my pride when they're right for once? Ironically Shermer became an atheist only after his love became paralyzed... and he was like "how could God be so cruel." My buddy was like "Wow, that's selfish" and the lightbulb went off in my head. It's like dude didn't care about children dying, AIDS, none of that other stuff, but when someone close to him got horribly injured it destroyed his faith... That's what I typically consider to be the western materialistic mindset, which actually has no proof... Materialism is a philosophy alone, and ironically falls under the pseudoscience category, because it can't be proven... The axiom that brain produces mind is truly a pseudoscientific view... It is not testable by the scientific method, yet sounds so scientific... Alas, the joy it is to see an asshole see his own hypocrisy. But of course I know that that doesn't apply because I have to fit within that paradigm of theirs lol. But I do tweak a lot of things if you haven't noticed. It would be nice to let me out of this trap so I can go have an intelligent discussion with individuals about that certain thing that I've been wanting to do, as I have more sources than mosquito bites in a bayou. I was wondering who has the ability to let me out of this. Shit you can ban me permanently if I fall out of line again idc, i know i won't, it's just that this man holds the key to something so profound. Think about it like this. Materialism entails you essentially are a worthless meat robot lumbering around with no purpose whatsoever. There is no inherent value to you or the world. Take this quote from stephen hawking for example:“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.” - there's so many layers of insanity to unravel in that one. But it sums up the materialistic point... which is pseudoscience lol i like opening up peoples minds tbh WikipediansSweep (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever way you get to an understanding of what the topic ban entails will work. You don't have to explain it. Imagine the administrator trying to decide whether what you want to do violates the topic ban broadly construed. And don't do it if that is the case. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I have a bunch of sources for the page i got banned on, what should i do? I mean they're 100% applicable and verifiable and there's dozens upon dozens and it's like... what do I do? Im asking about this NOT doing anything wrong. Im f+/@%■• scared to even say his name here, is that what this is about? Man im gonna lose it. Do I send them to someone who gives a damn? Could I send them to one of you guys? Look if the policy is not even being able to ask this question here... Where else am I gonna ask it? That's so asinine WikipediansSweep (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You can always go to another wikimedia site if you want to upload (or manage) sources. http://en.wikisource.org/ for example. Your topic ban only applies on wikipedia itself, not on the affiliated websites (commons, meta, books, other languages, etc.) jps (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't know how sources get spread. To my eyes at the moment, Wikipedia seems the main source. I'll research it. But if any of you guys wanna see them lemme know cuz I'll show you. It's why you edit wiki, to speak and insure the truth gets out there.

Side question, would David Bohm be fringe? Not many follow his ideas unlike many worlds theory, but he's up there as he found a solution to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but the implication the solution entails is something lol, and that's that every subatomic particle in the universe is interconnected with every single other one. Hence his holomovement idea. Is Wolfgang Pauli working with Carl Jung on attempting to solve synchronicity with a new branch of science fringe? Or Albert Einstein corroborating Jung in synchronicity fringe? I'm genuinely curious because those are some of the biggest names you can get in science. Is the 90 year unsolved mystery of the observer effect fringe? See it really confuses me. Even Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger had deep mystical faiths spurred by their findings into the nature of reality itself. Surely these guys can't be fringe.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The general consensus has typically been that you shouldn't try to fly too close to the Sun. jps (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but if the sun is an ever moving nuclear bomb, able to take out the founders of quantum mechanics, and then side with richard dawkins... they need their minds scrubbed - look i feel safe saying that because i know that what i'm posting in here is being seen so it's not like i'm falling out of line by any means and i'm making them pick up rocks they've walked past their whole life without examining. WikipediansSweep (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's just what the rules are. You may not like it, but that's what you've got to work with. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So we agree that that in itself is somewhat of a dictatorship. I am curious on whether or not there are boards to discuss this on, the pseudoscience definition. WikipediansSweep (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia at the level of rules enforcement is extremely authoritarian. Again, it's just how it is. If it's Wikipedia criticism you're after and you want a venue where you aren't forced to watch what you say (within reason), there is Wikipediocracy. I am active there. They pretty much welcome all comers. jps (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Why has no one talked about Russell since the last epoc

I check the page to see if any one of the "editors" labeling it pseudoscience has done even a google search for the guy other than impressing their false world views on people as dogmatic truths but they haven't... The fools hope lies in convincing others of his false predilections. What's even more pitiful is that I can prove to you that he doesn't even fall under the label given.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your arbitration enforcement topic ban from fringe science and Walter Russell‎, per AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 05:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Really? Be a good editor instead of a crook of actual knowledge

Wikipedia has rules and processes for a reason. If you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia (corollary, see WP:NOTHERE) you should be willing to edit elsewhere and respect your topic ban. Topic bans are exceedingly strict for a reason. Editors are expected to give wide berth to areas they have been banned from. Only if they prove they can edit the rest of the encyclopedia meaningfully will they be allowed back into their banned topic area. If you edit in pseudoscience again, or anything related to Walter Russell (even just in user space), you will almost certainly be banned indefinitely. I invite you to edit articles in a different area that interest you. For me, I love plants and ships, and edit those a lot. I bet you have other areas that you could help out in. I'm really hoping you can become a meaningful contributor. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Look man I had a Tibetan Buddhist page open where I was working off a Cambridge Tibetanologists paper on the historical foundings of the religion itself. I'm unsure of what prompted your incredibly delayed response of it either but that would have been updated. I'm also unsure on how saints are psuedoscience. I also was showing that all systems, even math, are reducible to unprovable axioms, check Gödel out. Comprehending this is not me dissing science, I'm 7 months away from having my degree in engineering. I just recognize that it takes primary assumptions to builds off of that. It was apparent that others on the board had already seen my words as well. I really want to play nice with you man, I thought we were cool after I finally posted legitimate sources. I'm honestly more impressed that the editors dare muddy the waters to the point of obfuscation and don't do anything about it. Sickens me.

Unblock Me

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Well for one, look at the date the post is for blocking, second look at who saw it, third recognize that others saw it and didn't feel it violated the rules. People take my words way out of context and then attack the strawman. Applying an undefined standard to a ban is beyond retarded. You have no authority to me. Take this as a spit in the face. WikipediansSweep (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The topic ban explicitly includes Walter Russell. There's no ambiguity there. Huon (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Actually I was told I could mention him in the slightest of passing, if it were related to my ban/unban/block. So yes there is a high level of ambiguity.

There is absolutely no ambiguity, and you didn't mention him in the context of an unban or block. But you were mainly blocked for your other pseudoscience postings, especially calling science pseudoscience. You are forbidden from posting or writing about any pseudoscience except and until you ask for an unblock in more than 6 months time at WP:AE. If it is unclear to you what pseudoscience is, then stay away from all science or conspiracy theory articles, broadly construed so as not to accidentally break your ban. Go and edit famous landmarks, or history articles, or about animals you like. Find something, anything, as long as it's not fringe or pseudoscience. Oh, and a word of advice, don't insult admins or use the R slur in any context, that's just asking for a permaban. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You started this with bias and pejoratives mind you. I never called anyone anything I called something something. I called out the logical loop of science needing to be based on things that can't be proven which is essentially against science's mainstream view of itself. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no definition of what is actual pseudoscience. You can't prove the axioms science is based on. Just saying that's a fact. Look man you do nothing but misinterpret me so I'd prefer you just don't talk to me.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why did other members of this committee see this and do nothing? Why a week late ban? Are you guys not on top of your shit? Or could it be that this violation that one sees is separate from what another sees? Authoritarian rule crumbles in my hands. You can not catch the wind nor me keep your eyes darting for I am among you, and what a beauty that you do not see. How close are your enemies? How foolish it is to even attempt to demean me. Ghoulish and foolish. Parrish and parish. Golly what a folly. You are my toy around my thumb don't worry I eat my young trapped in rings blood drips on my tongue decline=I think my mind not I care only to be right I ban than which I do not agree a free thinker in me

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.

I'm gonna ask again

Why has no one added anything to the article? Why has there only been removal of information... ironically information that fits the desired pov of justifying a false label. Im truly disgusted by how retarded you guys are. Pejoratives demand pejoratives. If I'm a quack, you're a retard.

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incivility and contributions which suggest that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)