User talk:Sotuman/Archive 2

Original Notice of Topic-Ban

 * The above notice re-inserted by User:Guy Macon as he felt I was "telling fibs" about "extreme narrowness of ban" when in fact the ban had not even been properly applied when the notice was first posted. I was forced to deal with an alleged topic ban violation at AN/I before the ban was even logged at AE. The ban itself was later logged and defined in the discussion, now found at incident archive 1003, by the banning admin User:Bishonen herself, who wrote "Sotuman, do you realize I gave you a very narrow topic ban — from one quite limited subject only — and that you can edit the entire rest of Wikipedia? Your ability to edit 99.9999% of Wikipedia is completely unhindered.". I took her at her word. Sotuman (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your exact words (which I correctly characterized as a fib about the narrowness of your topic ban) were "I agree that the article that I edited broadly falls within the scope of the topic ban, but the extreme narrowness of the ban was such that my edit itself is misconstrued to be a violation of it". Bishonen was saying that there the Genesis flood is a rather narrow subject area and that you are free to edit the huge majority of articles that are not about the Genesis flood. No reasonable person would conclude that editing Genesis flood narrative was anything other than a topic ban violation.


 * The good news is that we have rules about blocks, and one of the rules is that you can appeal your block and have another administrator who is completely uninvolved review the block. Just read Guide to appealing blocks and Appealing a block then follow the directions. Please read and understand those two pages and ask questions if they are not clear. Free clue: your present argument ("I didn't violate the topic ban") has very little chance of resulting in an unblock.


 * Just to cover all of the bases, if you are successful at getting your block overturned, you are then free to go to Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions and appeal the original topic ban. Be aware that in general you are expected to spend six moths proving that you can edit constructively in other areas before they will even consider overturning a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No reasonable person would call a person's judgment into question by applying a poorly-defined topic ban, and also rely on that same person's already poor judgment to correctly determine the exact scope of the ban. First there was a notice of a topic ban, but no logged ban, so I was graciously given a "warning" for the first "violation". Then I was told that I could still edit 99.9999% of Wikipedia. Now it seems the banned person is expected to magically know what other people consider to be unrelated enough to the banned topic to be editable under the ban, and also to become interested enough in those topics for a period of six months to make substantial edits. Rather than dragging people through the dog and pony show of topic bans, alleged violations, appeals, and blocks and more appeals, wouldn't it make more sense to just block the person outright for a set length of time? When I was first blocked for violating the 3RR rule, it was for 24 hours and that was great, no problem because it was clearly spelled out why. Now all of a sudden, nothing is properly defined, I've got indefinite bans and blocks and the onus is on me to figure it out. Even little things like the pronoun "we" should be defined. We = you plus at least one other person. I'm guessing the other person(s) is not me, who could it be? Does anyone know? -Sotuman (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
I've reverted your changes to the AE log as that is not where appeals of sanctions are made. You need to discuss this with the enforcing administrator first, and then at AN/I or AE. If the appeal is successful this will be recorded in the log. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Man, thanks so much for the info! For indefinite topic bans, I can only assume this means the appeal is also indefinite in nature. Since the enforcing administrator has turned the matter over to the larger Wikipedia community, it seems I will be able to indefinitely expand my appeal beyond the AN/I, to other forums on Wikipedia. What is the best place to do that? Sotuman (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again. While the appeal failed and the topic ban is "indefinite", often it can be appealed more successfully after six months.  There are many things one can do on Wikipedia meanwhile and this is an opportunity to also display good faith.  Editing on Wikipedia is considered a privilege (WP:FREE may be useful).  User:PaleoNeonate may perhaps include links to tasks/areas you would like to help with.  In any case, some topics are more difficult than others, I hope that you have a better experience in other areas.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In general the thing to do to give you the best chance of successfully appealing a topic ban is to get a track record of several months (at least 3-6) of constructive collaborative editing in completely unrelated topic areas, demonstrating that you are able to productively contribute to the encyclopaedia without causing the problems that led to your ban. When it comes to your appeal, then you need to demonstrate that you understand why the behaviour that resulted in the topic ban was problematic and that you wont just go right back to doing the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not an admin and can't arbitrarilly topic ban other users. Even if I was an admin, I would be very careful in the exercise of any of those powers, for instance, making full inquiry, and identifying myself and my goals to the user under examination prior to slapping on an indefinite topic ban. Sotuman (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "I will be able to indefinitely expand my appeal beyond the AN/I, to other forums on Wikipedia", that is not correct - please see WP:FORUMSHOP. What you need to do is accept the consensus that you are topic banned and, as others have already suggested, make some constructive contributions to other areas of Wikipedia for a period of time (making no reference to the prohibited topic, on any page). Typically, as Thryduulf suggests, a repeated topic ban appeal might be heard after 3 to 6 months, but in my experience the closer it is to 6 months (and the more good work you have done elsewhere), the more likely the community is to look favourably on an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll just add that looking back on your 2018 edits, I see a lot of good contributions covering a variety of topics. More of that is the best you can do right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for Topic Ban Appeal is Closed
HERE. Please do not refactor other people's comments. Please do not change the closing statement of closed threads, especially if you were the subject of that thread. Dloh Cier ekim   (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not use wildly misleading headings here, especially since you are also involved in the discussion. The discussion was marked as closed, but the template was wrongly applied. Sotuman (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And after it was closed you continued to add to it including changing the closing statement. I would have thought it should be obvious you shouldn't do either. You aren't helping yourself and I'm disappointed. Doug Weller  talk 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll get over it, I have. Sotuman (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized that the discussion closer template should not have been applied in the first place, as there wasn't a proper summary and it was too soon to close anyway, as per WP:CLOSE I consider it properly closed now, but it wasn't before. Sotuman (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked to enforce topic ban
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing, specifically for by violating your topic ban here immediately after a failed appeal. 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:. 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. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 February 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."
 * You are quite incorrect in your assumption that I intended to become blocked. Obviously I want to appeal my block, on the grounds that the alleged topic ban violation had precisely zero to do with this section of the article. This feels a bit like a witch hunt. You guys are ferociously efficient, I will give you that. Sotuman (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the topic ban: It is rather obvious that  is related to flood geology. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are technically correct as per an explanatory supplement, however, the specific terms of my ban were literally, as per user:Bishonen: "[My] ability to edit 99.9999% of Wikipedia [was] completely unhindered." Since the context was for the English part of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it follows that:
 * $$ \mathbf{Permitted Articles} = \mathbf{5,810,945 articles in English} \cdot \mathbf{.999999},$$


 * Which, when rounded to the nearest decimal, permits all but six articles to be edited. I agree that the article that I edited broadly falls within the scope of the topic ban, but the extreme narrowness of the ban was such that my edit itself is misconstrued to be a violation of it, because it was merely improving upon the summary of the narrative and had nothing to do with flood geology. The summary of the narrative wrongly stated that all life outside the ark died, but the narrative actually emphasizes that only the earth-based life died. This is easily verifiable by reading the actual narrative. What's the point of having an inaccurate summary? So it was a constructive edit and definitely not a violation of a very narrow topic ban on flood geology. Sotuman (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a nice slogan, but as previously mentioned editing is also a privilege and needs to be done with a minimum of competence (WP:CIR). — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Recently, I learned how to use the &lt;math&gt; function, as demonstrated above, and your response is to direct me to this. Here, read some more. I read to the bottom about how the last resort is for a user to be blocked indefinitely. Oops, it looks like we're already there, as if any of my edits were disruptive to the encyclopedia at all. Sotu  man  02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment ported from other conversation
You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary.

For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected.

You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola.

In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them.

In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Who's bending whose ear now? That looks like essay material to me. no need to thrust in my face what you think is a fitting response copied from some other situation that is somehow identical to this one, as I'm already  indefinitely blocked. I have donated money to Wikipedia in the past because I believe in the idea, tell me, why should I ever do so again? Sotuman (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your donation does not buy you influence on the community. Strictly speaking, donations are for servers costs, legal fees and some projects of the Wikimedia Foundation; the overwhelming majority of our edits are unpaid. So, yes, I have donated money, I have donated my work (time). If you are able to edit constructively, you should say so, however this is not a website to push endless WP:ADVOCACY for WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That the volunteers donate means they are incomparable to mere employees of a company such as Coca Cola. Before being blocked, I was able to edit constructively, this has already been acknowleged by this guy, who viewed my edits history, so there is no need to thump me over the head endlessly with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This one says that it applies to proposals that are obviously bogus, which is not the case with flood geology, because there is consideration of outburst floods in geology. So the classification as pseudoscience is a great hindrance to editors who see a real connection between things like mudslides, floods, dam failures, etc, and sedimentary geology, because it allows arbitrary bans and blocks for not adhering to a false concensus, which is comparable to tarring and feathering. It would be more accurate to classify the article as Questionable science or an Alternative theoretical formulation, which would set it on the path to being a good and helpful scientific article, as there are already other articles about the deluge depicted in the Bible, and precious little about how moving masses of water actually shape geology. The article itself is a dead, rotting horse, I'm certainly not the one who made it that way but I would like to see it changed or else have people redirected to articles such as surface-water hydrology. Even if such articles are shamefully scanty, they are more useful to enquiring minds than the current one on flood geology, by orders of magnitude. Sotuman (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is simply not science. Instead of reiterating the same claims and pursuing the same topic, I suggest taking the time to formulate an unblock request (access to this talk page remains for this purpose but could be revoked otherwise).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for stating the obvious. You are absolutely correct, the article on flood geology is not a scientific article. The problem is with its title, which incorporates the scientific field of geology and implies that floods affect geology. The question is, why is there not an article on how moving water affects geology? Other articles about water and sedimentary geology indicate that it is a significant geological process. Why is the article with the most relevant title such a mockery to Wikipedia? Sotuman (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually did not post that on your talk page. A user (flatteringly) copied it over from another talk page, where I replied to an accusation toward Wikipedia, with regard to difficulties the user was having with their attempts to contribute. If that particular piece of text was re-posted here, I can only assume that you have been having trouble making contributions. Do you need assistance with anything? Edaham (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, perhaps you can help me to underderstand the concept of consensus as it is practiced here on Wikipedia:
 * Users are urged to use the talk pages of an article to discuss why they think a certain edit needs to be made, but in practice, this is not required, or welcomed. Everyone watching a page has their own personal reasons for supporting or opposing an edit, and articulating these reasons on the talk page is considered a waste of time, as the discussion was already settled elsewhere.
 * But then someone makes an edit to an article anyway. The edit is reverted. The would-be editor goes to some length to explain the edit on the article talk page and redoes the edit. The edit is again reverted. The explanation is that there was no consensus for the edit. One or more people may comment on the talk page that the proposed edit is not unreasonable, and so the editor redoes the same edit. The edit is reverted a third time, and the editor is topic banned for "edit warring", and has all sorts of labels applied, such as soapboxer, sealion, etc.
 * Now that such a loser is topic-banned, their voice is conveniently eliminated from the forming of the consensus. So the consensus is a nice, honest-sounding word for the echo chamber of the "regulars", the gods of Wikipedia. But there's a growing number of losers who have contributed in the past, now indefinitely shut outside because they sang a wrong note once or twice. The Wikipedia bubble is large enough that a select few admin "regulars" needn't do any actual editing. Their main concern is to ensure that the people they disagree with will never get to speak again. Sotuman (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, what (mostly) gets people indeffed is not one occasional mistake, but persisting in WP:TE despite warnings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why you think I was engaging in that behaviour, as per WP:AOTE. I can see that my attempts to add the about template at the top of flood geology were not welcome, and am thankful for people such as   Ravenswing   who helped me to understand what is meant by consensus. Therefore I have no plans to attempt that edit again. I do not see how such attempts are so disruptive as to warrant indefinitely blocking a person. Sure, I'm sorrowful for the way things happened, and I also realize that ignorance isn't a defense, and that Wikipedia Arbitrary Enforcement Sanctions are not like a court of law. I feel a little like these guys. . Sotuman (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, so I cannot unblock you, but you do still come across as making sport of us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is this "us"? Do you mean the people who are still allowed to edit Wikipedia? When I was younger, I read hardcopy volumes of Encyclopædia Britannica for fun. When Wikipedia first came out, I thought it was a wonderful idea, and I still do. I was happy to be able to correct the spelling and grammar errors which others had missed. Then I began to think how parts of some articles could be written a little better, and I did so. I noticed a couple articles that were missing entirely, and added them. But it was only a couple weeks ago that I really began to be aware of the enormous behind-the-scenes machinery of Wikipedia, the talk pages, the policies, the noticeboards. I am sorry if it seems like I'm making sport of it from the sidelines. Really I find it hard to express my excitement over how lively Wikipedia is, and I only wish I could continue to participate now that I have begun to understand it a little better. Sotuman (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's not that hard to understand. You copped a topic ban, not a very wide-ranging one. You appealed and lost. At that point you could have gone peacefully about your business, but your very next edit looked like a breaching experiment or at least an attempt to test the limits of the ban, and your response to the consequences has been Wikilawyering. Even if you were in the right (which I'm pretty confident you're not), this approach would be more or less guaranteed not to get you anywhere. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * /How to use the term Wikilawyering Sotuman (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding your query: Consensus is purposefully not subject to strict definition. Given the contents of this thread and the number of editors who have turned up to converse with you on the subject of policies etc, the best advice I can give (if you wish to be an editor here) is almost certainly that you cease posting on your talk page on this subject and continue your appeal; placing emphasis on demonstrating that you understand and intend to abide by the limits of the topic ban which has been imposed. You could reenforce this by making a list of articles in different fields, which you intend to edit or create. I’ve never been banned so I’m not sure if it’s possible, but you could even inquire as to whether or not you can create and submit articles via the Articles for Creation process. In short you have to non-optionally demonstrate that you understand the ban and optionally show how you intend to help build the encyclopedia. All of the dialogues here with individual editors on this thread are completely irrelevant and a time sink.
 * it is possible (and somewhat satisfying to some) to drag out arguments ad nauseam. You can do that anywhere on the net though. There are much better places to find opponents or echo chambers for general musings and gripes. Talk page bans are also possible if a user continues to use a talk page (including their own) to advocate topics not central to the theme of building an encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything here is relevant and valuable to me. I thank-you for sharing your time and helping me to understand and for encouraging me to make a reasonable appeal. It's nice to have some closure and to get back to higher priority tasks. All the best to you, sir. Sotuman (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Impactful Screed

 * Especially with the ANI discussion now closed, a few thoughts, given your answer to me there: (1) A common fallacy is something I think of as "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" -- to wit, that no fact, premise, law or precept is valid or binding upon someone unless they agree with it. I concede that a lot of people subscribe to this fallacy, but in Wikipedia's consensus-based environment, your only recourse if you're on the losing side of things is to lose gracefully and move on. I'll reiterate what I said on ANI: the editors who voted to ban you, as well as the admins who declined your appeal and the admin who blocked you for violating the ban, are not required to provide you a rationale of a length and with reasoning acceptable to you. You've been topic-banned from this subject area, and it does not now matter if God himself places words of fire in the heavens saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong: if your indef block's removed, you still can never again edit in that area. Period. (2) Yes, indeed, "rationale" is less important than consensus, for the obvious reason that how we judge between oft-competing rationales is consensus.  If you're on the wrong side of consensus, it is not that They Just Don't Understand!!, whereupon you double down on your rhetoric.  It's that they don't agree, and you're back to lose-gracefully-and-move-on. (3) Yes, indeed, ANI is a kangaroo court, and speaking as a non-admin with several hundred edits there, the quickest way to draw the fire of the regulars upon one's own head is to put oneself over as a self-righteous pain in the backside who knows better than everyone else.  Whether this is "fair" I shan't belabor, but it's the way ANI works, and many an editor who could have poured oil on the waters with a sincere "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" has talked himself into an indef ban. (4) Why should you ever donate money to Wikipedia again?  You needn't; you're the best judge of where to spend your funds.  The relevance of your question, however, eludes me.  Surely you don't imagine that whatever contributions you make immunize you from Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  And finally ... (5) I predict, from a long history of failure at such final screeds, that none of what I've just typed will have any impact.  Unfortunately.   Ravenswing    02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the reply which I find to be insightful and helpful to my understanding. Your logic is undeniable. Sorry, I couldn't resist inserting that reference. All the best.   Sotuman  03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Re "it does not now matter if God himself places words of fire in the heavens saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong" He pretty much admitted that he thinks that God himself placed words of fire in the heavens saying that he is right and everyone else is wrong:


 * "If one were to acknowlege that an omniscient, infallible Being ensured that there would be a reliable record of what happened, this would change the entire discussion. But what is flood geology about? The question of God is really a more fundamental item that is definitely worth considering [...].When a scientist effectively claims that the Bible is a book of fairytales, at least where it speaks about the Great Flood, one is left to wonder, who then is the ultimate authority on matters of right and wrong? Was the Flood not a judgment by God of human error? Does the Bible not stand or fall by the truth of one verse, be it truly the Divine Word? Must we be degraded to referring only to a 'truth' as set by Wikipedia?" --Sotuman


 * I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened by Dr. Lorence G. Collins, retired professor of geology from California State University Northridge.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Stricken per comment below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Paleo Neonate has already advised me that the main reason I'm allowed to edit this talk page is to formulate an appeal of my indefinite block on the rest of Wikipedia. So there is no need for me to answer the article you linked to, as it appears to be a response to claims I never made, and it's distracting me from formulating my appeal. Sotuman (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Call for an end to this
I propose the following:

Sotuman is directed by the consensus of the community to either post an appeal using the standard form and then stop talking about his block or his topic ban outside of the appeal, or to simply stop talking about his block or his topic ban

Sotuman is encouraged (but not required) to word his appeal carefully and to avoid arguments that the guide to appeals says to avoid

If the appeal is denied, Sotuman is free to appeal again, hopefully with wording that addresses the reason given for denying the first appeal.

If Sotuman continues to talk about his block or his Topic ban outside of an appeal, It is consensus of the community that Sotuman's talk page access be revoked.

If Sotuman prefers, I can make this proposal somewhere more prominent, such as ANI. I chose this page so that he can respond.

Note: A proposal by one editor is not "the consensus of the community". The consensus (if any) will be in the responses to this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Requesting that talk page access be revoked at ANI seemed inevitable at this point, but the above seems clear and reasonable to strech WP:AGF some more. — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per both GMacon and PNeonate: This entire page is descendng into bizarrity. I suspect that it represents an exercise in trolling, frankly. ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agree that it seems like trolling: it is either wiki-incompetence to get the point or outright trolling. The blocked editor is exceedingly Civil POV pushing, but failed to realize the problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (I'm only here because someone included text I'd previously posted elsewhere and i got pinged). As part of the appeal I would strongly recommend that the editor compile a list of articles and subjects, which they intend to edit and are unrelated to those which fall within the topic ban. If there's a point to this, it shouldn't be to reinstate the editor merely because they recognize that they did a wrong thing, but because they have intent to constructively build the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support and a big "Thank-you!" to everyone who commented here to help me get unblocked. Sotuman (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Appeal of Block

 * You might want to consider:
 * Placing your request reason in the space provided for it in the Block Appeal form. This is not required, but it does make the appeal a bit easier to read.
 * Concentrating on a reason why your BLOCK should be reviewed instead of mixing in a reason why your TOPIC BAN should be reviewed. Block appeals are for appealing blocks.
 * Waiting to see if you are unblocked, and then posting the topic ban appeal on the appropriate page yourself if you are.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged by a previous version of the unblock template, some comments. I am usually open to giving second chances, and Sotuman has worked on uncontroversial topics such as teck cable or chip on board. Thus I'd be inclined to accept the request. However, there are some caveats:
 * Regarding "online scientific journals" and "properly cited material", we've been there before. See Talk:Surface-water hydrology. The problem with Sotuman's sources, at least in the discussion I was involveed in, wasn't that they were unreliable or unscientific, the problem was that they either were off-topic or didn't confirm the statements they were cited for. Having better access to sources won't resolve those issues.
 * The "never-before-seen high-quality photographs" would need to be freely licensed; then they could just as well be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons (where Sotuman isn't blocked).
 * The version of the unblock request that I was pinged by mentioned surface-water hydrology. That article indeed should be unrelated to flood geology. When there's an argument on the talk page about the sediment layers through which the Colorado River has dug the Grand Canyon possibly having been deposited within "hours or days", that's very much related to flood geology. I would not consider it a good idea for Sotuman to return to that article before the topic ban is resolved.
 * Finally, Sotuman, please do not insert your own comments within other editors' as you did above. You added an explanatory note, but such modifications still make it more difficult to tell who said what. Huon (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that Sotuman has greatly improved his appeal above -- good job! While it is my practice to help editors to create the best possible appeal whether or not I think they should be unblocked, in this case I am now changing my opinion from "retain the block" to "undecided, leaning toward unblocking".

One more suggestion: Sotuman, could you explain in your own words what the scope of your topic ban is? No need t edit the appeal again, a simple reply to this comment is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the unblock request is really pretty close to what we need, and I'm leaning towards unblock too. And I don't think an unblock needs a community discussion, as the block itself isn't a community block - it's a community topic ban, but a simple admin block for violating the tban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about it, and my opinion is now Unblock with a mention and explanation of "broadly construed" and the usual advice advice about editing productively in other areas for X months being a good way of improving one's chances to have a topic ban lifted. I have a good feeling about Sotuman, and I would like to see what he can do with Thermal grease, and possibly Thermally conductive pad and Thermal interface material. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, witht he broadest possible construction of broadly construed, this should be OK. But the rule has to be: when in doubt, seek clarification 'first''. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sotuman has responded below. Do you have an opinion on this appeal? I notice, since it's arbitration enforcement, appeals that you don't accept must be heard at a community noticeboard. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * it's not a simple Admin block, it's an AE block. Doug Weller  talk 10:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it needs an appeal to the enforcing admin, AE or AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

~Swarm~  {talk}  20:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have had off-wiki confirmation from JzG that he is okay with an unblock here so long as the TBAN remains in place. I am therefore going to unblock you. I trust that you take to heart the advice given above. Your TBAN remains in force and further edits that are in any way related to flood geology is likely to be met with further blocks. GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice for avoiding topic ban violations
I am pretty sure that Sotuman now "gets it" and that he should be unblocked, but I am still going to post the following advice. This is in response to Sotuman's earlier claim that "the alleged topic ban ("You have been indefinitely topic banned from Flood geology and related pages") violation had precisely zero to do with this section (Genesis flood narrative) of the article." Here is my advice:

If you are unblocked, you really need to figure out how to avoid violating your topic ban.

Read the following very carefully. If you need to, read it every day for a month. If you have the slightest question or you have any doubts about the following advice, feel free to ask the blocking administrator for clarification. I have never met a Wikipedia administrator who isn't happy to explain how to avoid being blocked.

Stay away from anything even remotely related to flood geology.

No pages about the genesis flood.

No pages about how long it took for the grand canyon to be formed. Or the green river formation.

No pages about hydraulic sorting of fossils.

No pages about anything about floods or about geology if they touch on any of the areas where the creationists and their flood geology theory disagree with the scientists.

No edits on sections of non-flood-geology pages that in any way touch on flood-geology or related topics.

Not on articles.

Not on talk pages.

Not on noticeboards.

Not on your own user page or talk page (you can discuss your block or topic ban on your talk page, but be careful not to stray into discussing flood geology or related topics).

No edits that will later end up with you saying "I thought it was OK because..." There is no reason that is a valid excuse for violating your topic ban.

No exceptions.

No excuses.

If you have any doubt, stay away. If you really think that your edit is OK for whatever reason, it most likely isn't, so ask first.

Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy.

In fact, I advise you to stop reading pages that in any way touch on flood-geology or related topics. That way you won't be tempted to edit them.

Figure out what got you blocked and figure out how not to do it again. Ask questions if you need to.

What I am trying to help you avoid is


 * Another topic ban violation.


 * Another indefinite block.


 * No administrator being willing to unblock you a second time.

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That is good advice which I can understand and appreciate. Thank-you for your efforts towards getting me un-blocked and for helping me to avoid another topic ban violation and block.


 * Wikipedia is like the garden of Eden, with thousands of good topics that are safe for editors to participate in. But topics like flood geology, which have to do with the Biblical Flood of Genesis, I will treat as forbidden fruit of the tree of knowlege of good and evil. But unlike Adam and Eve, I will not frolic beneath it or become beguiled by the talking snakes who hang out there. Sotuman (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bishonen &#124; talk 20:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Ah. Missed that. Thanks!
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)