- DrChrissy can certainly ping me in such cases. Glad to lend a hand. Montanabw(talk) 07:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all for the clarifications and offers of help. I have already avoided editing on the subject I am not allowed to talk about. On an animal page, there was the opportunity to edit a very useful piece of material where a non-human animal was a useful model of psychology in another animal species I am not allowed to mention; it simply wasn't worth it. The result - the project suffers.DrChrissy (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's no point asking for trouble, is there? Speaking of which, it looks like the edit you made to your sandbox may violate your topic ban as it concerns references for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments. Pinging the topic ban closing admin Adjwilley for clarification. This might also be a good time to clarify the hypothetical situation in this section (whether discussing MEDRS on an animal page, even to say it doesn't apply to that page, would be a violation of the topic ban). Ca2james (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How can editing a sandbox violate a topic ban? A sandbox is a 'sandbox' by definition. Wikipedia:About the Sandbox--Aspro (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Ca2james This is absolutely staggering! I copied the table from my own sandbox into another place into my own sandbox. The material already existed before the topic ban. My intention is to develop a table on the sensory characteristics of domestic animals - hence the new column headings. Did you see those? I was called away before I could develop the table further. I think that was 4 hours ago. I have not made any attempt to discuss material in this edit or elsewhere. I was using it as a template. I think you are WP:hounding me.DrChrissy (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to see you blocked for violating your topic ban, and editing your sandbox is a grey area with respect to that ban. If you don't want me posting here, please ask me to stop instead of accusing me of hounding for pointing out possible violations of your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really don't want to see me blocked, why have you brought the subject up? Why not take my sandbox off your watchlist and don't worry about a low-level editor starting a new \nd informative page about the sensory characteristics of domestic animals.DrChrissy (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to clarify your topic ban so that you don't violate it and get blocked. If you don't want people pointing out that you might be violating your topic ban, don't make edits that might violate your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, seriously -- if you want to get out from under the topic ban you need to convince people that you're willing to keep inside the lines. That means staying away from anything having to do with alt med. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Not on your talk page, not in your sandbox, not anywhere else on the interwebs that has "en.wikipedia.org" in the URL. By doing things like this you're only giving ammunition to your opponents. It doesn't matter if you think you're in the right or even if you are in the right -- you need to change people's perceptions and this isn't the way to do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points:
- There is no "grey area" here. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, no exceptions. If the subject of the topic ban necessitates involvement from the involved party, such as in them being required to answer questions in an ArbCom case, that's a different matter and all parties understand.
- I think we should AGF and accept DrChrissy's explanation. I don't see any attempt to deal with acupuncture. They just copied an existing template and haven't finished modifying it yet. That's not a violation. Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood.
- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrChrissy, I was asked to comment above, but it looks like several other users have already given you all the advice you need. My advice is to listen. Also, to clarify the above, it is not a blockable offense to mention MEDRS while discussing the terms of your topic ban with an administrator. Otherwise though, I think Short Brigade Harvester Boris is 100% right. In the (unlikely) hypothetical situation where somebody demands an MEDRS source for a mundane animal claim like dogs having four legs, I think your best bet would be to decline to reply to such a silly comment. Second best might be to say "I can't comment on that, but perhaps User:Montanabw can." Be careful of WP:Canvass though; if you are frequently pinging others to take your side in disputes it can get you back into hot water. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you all for your AGF. @User:Adjwilley, or another admin, I would like to further show good faith by removing all banned subject matter totally from my sandbox so I do not make this mistake again. However, this will of course mean me editing the banned subject. I will wait for advice before I do this.DrChrissy (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing topical content from pages in your userspace is perfectly acceptable while topic banned. Just try not to add to them or modify them in a way that still addresses the topic. You can definitely go ahead and remove references from your sandbox if you'd like. Good luck! — Jess· Δ♥ 09:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.DrChrissy (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. This is written into your topic ban. It's very clear and it is an exemption to your MEDRS topic ban. It probably wouldn't be a good idea for anyone to attempt to game your sanctions in an attempt to cause trouble for you. If they say you need a MEDRS source to show a dog has four legs (which would be ridiculous), dog biology falls under animal biology and is exempt from your topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this. There are other examples which have ocurred in the past - I think a well known medical editor insisted on MEDRS for non-human related subject matter on the Foie gras article. However, these examples are from the past and I am totally clear that in the future, I will ping an admin if I am unsure about things.DrChrissy (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]