Hey, Snoopy. I'd be happy to adopt you. If you're interested, just leet me know here or on my talk page. Swarm Talk 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have changed all of the pronouns on Blaire_White's wikipedia page from "she" to "he," and that you have repeatedly re-inserted these edits after they were removed. I don't want to make assumptions about your intentions or your level of familiarity with wikipedia's coverage of this issue. However, biographical articles are expected to use the pronouns consistent with a person's identity. See Wikipedia:Gender_identity. The article has been repaired for a third time today - please refrain from editing it again, as this could be considered either Disruptive editing or vandalism. If it continues, I will need to forward this to a formal dispute resolution process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxgloved ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to stop by your page because I saw your post on MOSGENDERID. Let me start off by telling you that you really need to reign in the rhetoric on that page, it can get you topic banned or worse. That's not a threat, nor am I a sysop , so I can't topic ban you, but it's still a real situation you could find yourself in.
Let me tell you that I disagree with MOS:GENDERID as well, because I believe that we don't need a separate MOS for it, basically, anything that we need is already in place (WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:BLP (which says no attack pieces or unreliable stuff on BLP pages). That being said, Wikipedia is run by consensus, and, well, consensus stated that this should be a policy, so here it is.
My suggestion to you is not to try to change it, it's a real hot button issue, everyone's got opinions on them, and they're all polarizing. Edit other articles that don't deal with that issue, edit everywhere else and it won't be an issue. It will save you a lot of trouble, pain and possible a block or a ban, you don't want either , trust me! ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 20:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to participate in this review, but please do not delete arguments made by other editors, as you did with this edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!) 23:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The blocking admin did not provide enough detail in the reason section for me to know precisely why I was blocked, but the initial request for administrative action cited three things which supposedly demonstrate WP:NOTHERE. The first was a series of edits I made nearly a decade ago, before I even knew that Wikipedia had any rules at all. The second was an edit war which I disengaged from when another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID. I'm not sure how conforming to policy, once confronted with it, demonstrates WP:NOTHERE, but whatever. The third, it seems, was for bludgeoning the process re WP:Deletion_review/log/2018 April 17, even though that's an essay and not a policy.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2018 (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.
@ Ian.thomson: Did you see my most recent revision of the request? Snoopydaniels ( talk) 03:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
On the one hand, this unblock request is like most unblock requests in that it is stubborn and defiant, and does not provide any indication that they will behave better in the future. As such, if I were an administrator (which I am not), and were responding to this unblock request without researching the case, I would simply decline it, and possibly even revoke talk page access. On the other hand, I think that handing out an indefinite block under the circumstances to a warrior who has been warned is an unfair pre-emptive strike, indeffing an editor because it appears that they will continue to be disruptive in the future. I would suggest that an administrator show that they have more of a sense of proportion than this editor does by changing this to a time-limited block and allowing the editor to come back once with enough rope.
This editor has evidently done three things that they should not have done. The first was in 2010. I suggest that that be overlooked. The second was a remarkably vindictive attack on a transgender person's article and on the transgender person, which they claimed was reverting vandalism (!?!?). The third has been bludgeoning the process about a contentious deletion. Only the second deserves a block in 2018, and, at this point, after the editor wasn't blocked (and wasn't warned of ArbCom discretionary sanctions) at the time, a block at this time is punitive. Neither being an ass about a deletion nor beating a dead ass about a deletion warrants an indefinite block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Snoopydaniels - Consider requesting an unblock in a way that indicates that you have read the guide to appealing blocks. However, also, it might be a good idea to ask why you are in Wikipedia if you think that everyone else is usually wrong. Administrator: Please consider changing this block to a time-limited block with a single warning. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The reasons given by the blocking administrator include edits from nearly a decade ago made before I knew that Wikipedia had any rules. They also include reference to a dispute involving pronoun usage in Blair White, and this is the example given in the blocked user log. In that case, I self corrected as soon as another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID. Self correction is one of the indicators of WP:HERE. The third and final reason given for the block is that I was apparently bludgeoning the deletion review process process re Gunter Bechly. This was the result of some apparent misunderstandings on my part regarding the dispute resolution process and the nature of consensus and consensus building. I was under the impression that all editors are bound to the content guidelines regardless of "local" consensus, and so when it became obvious that the editors opposing this DRV had fundamentally misunderstood those content guidelines or had not given any consideration to the sources I supplied, I thought that was a legitimate cause to "escalate" the dispute. Apparently that is not the case and trying to hold editors accountable to the content guidelines is considered disruptive as long as they are a majority. Also, my understanding was that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and requires participants in a dispute to actually justify and defend their positions, engage in discussion in an attempt to reach an acceptable compromise, etc. instead of just glorified voting. So I proceeded to refute each of their erroneous arguments and solicit more detailed explanations of their positions. Apparently, demanding that editors provide valid arguments is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well. Being cooperative and congenial is more important than being right or having the best possible content. This whole process has been a valuable learning experience that I have no desire to repeat, so there is no need to fear future disruption.
Decline reason:
Sorry, no. This seems more a manifesto of what you think is wrong with Wikipedia than acknowledgement of disruptive, tendentious behavior and a description of what you will do/not do in the future.
It drips with sarcasm. Sarcasm! We will leave aside for the nonce the incredible occurrence of you remaining away from Wikipedia for years only to shriek into battle over a controversial deletion, Shillelagh flying, when that deletion had already been endorsed at WP:DRV, which certainly raises the issue of sockpuppetry. We come then to the here and now. You clearly do not understand any of the policy and guidelines you have referenced and make no mention of what and how you will edit constructively. Once you have considered all of this and can show you understand the reason for your block and can indicate what constructive edits you would make, you may then request an unblock.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 06:51, 29 April 2018 (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.
@ Dlohcierekim: The guidelines for requesting an unblock don't say anything about believing and comnfessing that the holy Wikipedia is perfect. Nor do they say anything about sarchasm. You don't have to agree with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and all of its editors in order to follow the rules. Besides, all of the behavior at issue had ceased before this block was requested, and I had already described my future plans. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 07:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Improving WP by going after obvious cases of bias and other violations of its content rules IS A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA., summarizes their approach to WP - they are not here to add content that summarizes accepted knowledge, but rather to wage culture wars. Righting great wrongs is not what editing privileges are for. If you look at their contribs you will no edits -- none -- where they have actually tried to add any new, well-sourced NPOV content to WP and per that remark they have no intent to do so. We are way beyond any need to assume good faith - we have a demonstrated pattern of behavior and no insight that this is not OK. Guy is an admin who sees that AGF is not a suicide pact. The block was good and none of the unblock requests address the actual problem, which is about their mission, which is not the mission of the editing community. Jytdog ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have been willing to place a request in WP:AN asking for a block review to make it time-limited rather than indefinite, but the blocked party is digging a hole. When you are in a hole, stop digging. Since you take such a negative view of Wikipedia, which you seem to think is such a biased and dishonest and corrupt place, it isn't clear why you want your editing privilege restored. That is, it isn't clear why you want your editing privilege restored, unless you either have an ulterior agenda (perhaps for the Discovery Institute? just guessing), or because you have such a deep dislike of Wikipedia that you actually want to see conflict, or because you have a very inflated sense of your own persuasive powers, that you alone can clean up Wikipedia.
Did you know that, by changing the spelling of someone's name in order to make a point about their gender, sometimes you actually change the name to that of a completely different person? You referred to Blair White, probably because that is a masculine spelling, rather than Blaire White, which is a feminine spelling. As to whether your edits to her article were vindictive, your edit summary is clear enough.
Maybe Wikipedia values such as assuming good faith are rubbing off on me and I am more willing than some administrators to give disruptive editors credit for being willing to learn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is completely unnecessary and disproportionate, possibly even prejudicial and punitive (See
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Snoopydaniels where the blocking admin made no attempt to conceal his disdain for anyone who questions the Darwinian religion.)
The reason provided in the block log is WP:NOTHERE, with no additional explanation except for a link to
this diff. My edit summary was a tongue-in-cheek parody of
this earlier edit summary. Meanwhile, the edits themselves were an honest attempt to make the article's language reflect biological reality and pronoun definitions as understood by a general audience (as opposed to an audience composed of gender theorists.) As soon as another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID, I unilaterally disengaged from the edit war (i.e. self-corrected, which
WP:HERE lists as a positive indicator.) Instead, I took the dispute to a more appropriate forum based on my understanding of the dispute resolution guidelines.
Meanwhile, if anyone had bothered to do any research before accusing me of "transphobic vandalism", they would have learned that
Blaire White is a conservative political commentator who is critical of the transgender movement, including the hysteria surrounding "misgendering" and notions of a gender spectrum. (See
this interview, and
"There are only two genders") In short, of all of the transgender people in the world, he is probably the least likely to object to or be personally affronted by someone referring to him based on his biological sex.
Now on to the constructive contributions I intend to make, if I am unblocked. Although I think trying to identify and correct biased Wikipedia articles in accordance with its policies and guidelines is an imminently valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, some of the comments on my talk page seem to indicate that many editors think WP:HERE requires contributing new content and the like. To that end, I intend to start by browsing the list of articles that need attention, and in particular to look for stubs that require elaboration. I also have quite a lot of experience with technical writing and editing, so I may be able to improve existing content by fixing grammatical errors or unclear language. I have expertise in software engineering and information technology, which should help the encyclopedia keep up with those rapidly evolving fields.
Decline reason:
Starting off with "The block is completely unnecessary and disproportionate, possibly even prejudicial and punitive (See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Snoopydaniels where the blocking admin made no attempt to conceal his disdain for anyone who questions the Darwinian religion" completely fails to convince me that your future approach is going to be collaborative or that you understand Wikipedia's requirements to edit from a neutral point of view based on the balance of reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:38, 2 May 2018 (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.
OK, let me start with a little background about myself (which I think is needed for my comments on Intelligent Design, and to be fair to you so you understand where I'm coming from and so you can decide whether I'm the kind of person who you might want to help you). I did a Bachelor's degree in biological sciences, including evolutionary genetics, and I've seen first-hand some of the evidence supporting evolution. What strikes me is that there is an enormity of evidence, from vastly different investigative approaches, and I'm pretty much convinced that evolution happened. I've also done a Masters in Philosophy, and I've traveled a lot, actively seeking out some of the world's major religious sites and cultures and trying to understand them. I've also investigated the history and philosophy of science
Where does that education leave me on the religion/evolution divide? It leaves me totally perplexed that the divide even exists. I'm from the UK, and it seems to me that it's largely an American thing (at least in Christian culture). The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church in the world and one of the oldest (I think it vies with the Eastern Orthodox Church in claims to follow an unbroken lineage from Christ - but don't quote me on that as I'm not an expert). It's way older than the US as a country, and way older than Anglicanism (which didn't split from the Church of Rome until Henry VIII). The Catholic Church asserts that Christian faith and human evolution are not in conflict, and does not insist on a creation vs evolution dichotomy. It was Stephen Jay Gould who famously asserted that religion and science represented "non-overlapping magisteria". I think he was wrong, which is an opinion I appear to share with the Pope.
On to Intelligent Design, a subject I have read a lot about. The claim is that irreducible complexity is not scientific, and that does indeed seem to be the scientific consensus - and my opinion, your opinion, JzG's opinion are utterly irrelevant as far as Wikipedia goes. Only the balance of opinion in reliable sources is what counts. As an aside, the idea of irreducible complexity is that of something whose complexity can not be reduced without destroying its function - but it does not define any way to determine whether such reduction would destroy function, but simply appears to assert that examples are irreducible based on analogy and "I can't see how..." argument (which is often described as the argument from personal incredulity). That is absolutely not using the scientific method. Additionally, every one of the examples of irreducible complexity suggested by the Discovery Institute (at the time I was reading about it) has been disproved - by identifying a more reduced but still functional alternative. Reducing something is an absolute disproof of alleged irreducibility. So there's nothing wrong whatsoever in describing anything based on irreducible complexity as unscientific, at least in Wikipedia's voice, because that is overwhelmingly the majority position of the scientific world.
Next, Gunter Bechly. I can't offer anything on him, because all I know of him is what I've read in Wikipedia. I don't know what he has said about Intelligent Design, so I can't comment on that. But, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District legal case did conclude that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that is almost unanimously supported by the scientific world. So creationist support for Intelligent Design must be very carefully used, at least in Wikipedia which is all we care about here. Again, it's not my opinion, yours, or JzG's that counts, it's the weight of reliable sources.
So what's the point of all this? It's essentially background to answering your question of what it would take to establish a prejudicial motive on User:JzG's behalf. I'd say it would need evidence of persistent attempts to impose his own personal viewpoint in contradiction to the academic consensus. I'm not seeing that, and I don't think you have any chance of supporting it.
Where do we go from here? My view is that your block was within justified admin discretion. But I'd like to see you unblocked to work on the areas you describe. If you were to drop the accusations of admin misconduct against JzG over the block, and agree to not do the things you were blocked for (which you do appear to be doing), I'd like to help you in your quest to return. It might take a discussion at WP:AN, but I could help to facilitate that. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll ask everybody to not post any more comments here, however well-intentioned. This should stop, and it hardly seems fair to stop it by revoking Snoopydaniel's talkpage access when all they do is respond to what other people bring here. For you, Snoopydaniels, please also don't post here further, except in the form of another formal unblock request, if you wish to make one. Note, I'm baffled by the focus so far in your unblock requests on the supposed three "reasons given by the blocking administrator", insisting those reasons included edits from nearly a decade ago, etc. [1] The only reason given by the blocking admin was not being here to build an encyclopedia — I've checked several times, and yes, that was it — so arguing in your unblock requests with reasons somebody else may have proposed elsewhere doesn't make any sense. Instead, I'd advise you to post an unblock request where you attempt to show that you are here to build an encyclopedia, by telling us what you intend to do if you should be unblocked — "what and how you will edit constructively", as Dlohcierekim put it. Admins' patience with requests that don't address the actual reason given for the block is running out, and your talkpage access is likely to be revoked if you post another one of those. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
Hey, Snoopy. I'd be happy to adopt you. If you're interested, just leet me know here or on my talk page. Swarm Talk 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have changed all of the pronouns on Blaire_White's wikipedia page from "she" to "he," and that you have repeatedly re-inserted these edits after they were removed. I don't want to make assumptions about your intentions or your level of familiarity with wikipedia's coverage of this issue. However, biographical articles are expected to use the pronouns consistent with a person's identity. See Wikipedia:Gender_identity. The article has been repaired for a third time today - please refrain from editing it again, as this could be considered either Disruptive editing or vandalism. If it continues, I will need to forward this to a formal dispute resolution process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxgloved ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to stop by your page because I saw your post on MOSGENDERID. Let me start off by telling you that you really need to reign in the rhetoric on that page, it can get you topic banned or worse. That's not a threat, nor am I a sysop , so I can't topic ban you, but it's still a real situation you could find yourself in.
Let me tell you that I disagree with MOS:GENDERID as well, because I believe that we don't need a separate MOS for it, basically, anything that we need is already in place (WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:BLP (which says no attack pieces or unreliable stuff on BLP pages). That being said, Wikipedia is run by consensus, and, well, consensus stated that this should be a policy, so here it is.
My suggestion to you is not to try to change it, it's a real hot button issue, everyone's got opinions on them, and they're all polarizing. Edit other articles that don't deal with that issue, edit everywhere else and it won't be an issue. It will save you a lot of trouble, pain and possible a block or a ban, you don't want either , trust me! ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 20:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to participate in this review, but please do not delete arguments made by other editors, as you did with this edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!) 23:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The blocking admin did not provide enough detail in the reason section for me to know precisely why I was blocked, but the initial request for administrative action cited three things which supposedly demonstrate WP:NOTHERE. The first was a series of edits I made nearly a decade ago, before I even knew that Wikipedia had any rules at all. The second was an edit war which I disengaged from when another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID. I'm not sure how conforming to policy, once confronted with it, demonstrates WP:NOTHERE, but whatever. The third, it seems, was for bludgeoning the process re WP:Deletion_review/log/2018 April 17, even though that's an essay and not a policy.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2018 (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.
@ Ian.thomson: Did you see my most recent revision of the request? Snoopydaniels ( talk) 03:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
On the one hand, this unblock request is like most unblock requests in that it is stubborn and defiant, and does not provide any indication that they will behave better in the future. As such, if I were an administrator (which I am not), and were responding to this unblock request without researching the case, I would simply decline it, and possibly even revoke talk page access. On the other hand, I think that handing out an indefinite block under the circumstances to a warrior who has been warned is an unfair pre-emptive strike, indeffing an editor because it appears that they will continue to be disruptive in the future. I would suggest that an administrator show that they have more of a sense of proportion than this editor does by changing this to a time-limited block and allowing the editor to come back once with enough rope.
This editor has evidently done three things that they should not have done. The first was in 2010. I suggest that that be overlooked. The second was a remarkably vindictive attack on a transgender person's article and on the transgender person, which they claimed was reverting vandalism (!?!?). The third has been bludgeoning the process about a contentious deletion. Only the second deserves a block in 2018, and, at this point, after the editor wasn't blocked (and wasn't warned of ArbCom discretionary sanctions) at the time, a block at this time is punitive. Neither being an ass about a deletion nor beating a dead ass about a deletion warrants an indefinite block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Snoopydaniels - Consider requesting an unblock in a way that indicates that you have read the guide to appealing blocks. However, also, it might be a good idea to ask why you are in Wikipedia if you think that everyone else is usually wrong. Administrator: Please consider changing this block to a time-limited block with a single warning. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The reasons given by the blocking administrator include edits from nearly a decade ago made before I knew that Wikipedia had any rules. They also include reference to a dispute involving pronoun usage in Blair White, and this is the example given in the blocked user log. In that case, I self corrected as soon as another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID. Self correction is one of the indicators of WP:HERE. The third and final reason given for the block is that I was apparently bludgeoning the deletion review process process re Gunter Bechly. This was the result of some apparent misunderstandings on my part regarding the dispute resolution process and the nature of consensus and consensus building. I was under the impression that all editors are bound to the content guidelines regardless of "local" consensus, and so when it became obvious that the editors opposing this DRV had fundamentally misunderstood those content guidelines or had not given any consideration to the sources I supplied, I thought that was a legitimate cause to "escalate" the dispute. Apparently that is not the case and trying to hold editors accountable to the content guidelines is considered disruptive as long as they are a majority. Also, my understanding was that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and requires participants in a dispute to actually justify and defend their positions, engage in discussion in an attempt to reach an acceptable compromise, etc. instead of just glorified voting. So I proceeded to refute each of their erroneous arguments and solicit more detailed explanations of their positions. Apparently, demanding that editors provide valid arguments is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well. Being cooperative and congenial is more important than being right or having the best possible content. This whole process has been a valuable learning experience that I have no desire to repeat, so there is no need to fear future disruption.
Decline reason:
Sorry, no. This seems more a manifesto of what you think is wrong with Wikipedia than acknowledgement of disruptive, tendentious behavior and a description of what you will do/not do in the future.
It drips with sarcasm. Sarcasm! We will leave aside for the nonce the incredible occurrence of you remaining away from Wikipedia for years only to shriek into battle over a controversial deletion, Shillelagh flying, when that deletion had already been endorsed at WP:DRV, which certainly raises the issue of sockpuppetry. We come then to the here and now. You clearly do not understand any of the policy and guidelines you have referenced and make no mention of what and how you will edit constructively. Once you have considered all of this and can show you understand the reason for your block and can indicate what constructive edits you would make, you may then request an unblock.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 06:51, 29 April 2018 (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.
@ Dlohcierekim: The guidelines for requesting an unblock don't say anything about believing and comnfessing that the holy Wikipedia is perfect. Nor do they say anything about sarchasm. You don't have to agree with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and all of its editors in order to follow the rules. Besides, all of the behavior at issue had ceased before this block was requested, and I had already described my future plans. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 07:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Improving WP by going after obvious cases of bias and other violations of its content rules IS A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA., summarizes their approach to WP - they are not here to add content that summarizes accepted knowledge, but rather to wage culture wars. Righting great wrongs is not what editing privileges are for. If you look at their contribs you will no edits -- none -- where they have actually tried to add any new, well-sourced NPOV content to WP and per that remark they have no intent to do so. We are way beyond any need to assume good faith - we have a demonstrated pattern of behavior and no insight that this is not OK. Guy is an admin who sees that AGF is not a suicide pact. The block was good and none of the unblock requests address the actual problem, which is about their mission, which is not the mission of the editing community. Jytdog ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have been willing to place a request in WP:AN asking for a block review to make it time-limited rather than indefinite, but the blocked party is digging a hole. When you are in a hole, stop digging. Since you take such a negative view of Wikipedia, which you seem to think is such a biased and dishonest and corrupt place, it isn't clear why you want your editing privilege restored. That is, it isn't clear why you want your editing privilege restored, unless you either have an ulterior agenda (perhaps for the Discovery Institute? just guessing), or because you have such a deep dislike of Wikipedia that you actually want to see conflict, or because you have a very inflated sense of your own persuasive powers, that you alone can clean up Wikipedia.
Did you know that, by changing the spelling of someone's name in order to make a point about their gender, sometimes you actually change the name to that of a completely different person? You referred to Blair White, probably because that is a masculine spelling, rather than Blaire White, which is a feminine spelling. As to whether your edits to her article were vindictive, your edit summary is clear enough.
Maybe Wikipedia values such as assuming good faith are rubbing off on me and I am more willing than some administrators to give disruptive editors credit for being willing to learn. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Snoopydaniels ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is completely unnecessary and disproportionate, possibly even prejudicial and punitive (See
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Snoopydaniels where the blocking admin made no attempt to conceal his disdain for anyone who questions the Darwinian religion.)
The reason provided in the block log is WP:NOTHERE, with no additional explanation except for a link to
this diff. My edit summary was a tongue-in-cheek parody of
this earlier edit summary. Meanwhile, the edits themselves were an honest attempt to make the article's language reflect biological reality and pronoun definitions as understood by a general audience (as opposed to an audience composed of gender theorists.) As soon as another editor pointed me to MOS:GENDERID, I unilaterally disengaged from the edit war (i.e. self-corrected, which
WP:HERE lists as a positive indicator.) Instead, I took the dispute to a more appropriate forum based on my understanding of the dispute resolution guidelines.
Meanwhile, if anyone had bothered to do any research before accusing me of "transphobic vandalism", they would have learned that
Blaire White is a conservative political commentator who is critical of the transgender movement, including the hysteria surrounding "misgendering" and notions of a gender spectrum. (See
this interview, and
"There are only two genders") In short, of all of the transgender people in the world, he is probably the least likely to object to or be personally affronted by someone referring to him based on his biological sex.
Now on to the constructive contributions I intend to make, if I am unblocked. Although I think trying to identify and correct biased Wikipedia articles in accordance with its policies and guidelines is an imminently valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, some of the comments on my talk page seem to indicate that many editors think WP:HERE requires contributing new content and the like. To that end, I intend to start by browsing the list of articles that need attention, and in particular to look for stubs that require elaboration. I also have quite a lot of experience with technical writing and editing, so I may be able to improve existing content by fixing grammatical errors or unclear language. I have expertise in software engineering and information technology, which should help the encyclopedia keep up with those rapidly evolving fields.
Decline reason:
Starting off with "The block is completely unnecessary and disproportionate, possibly even prejudicial and punitive (See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Snoopydaniels where the blocking admin made no attempt to conceal his disdain for anyone who questions the Darwinian religion" completely fails to convince me that your future approach is going to be collaborative or that you understand Wikipedia's requirements to edit from a neutral point of view based on the balance of reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:38, 2 May 2018 (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.
OK, let me start with a little background about myself (which I think is needed for my comments on Intelligent Design, and to be fair to you so you understand where I'm coming from and so you can decide whether I'm the kind of person who you might want to help you). I did a Bachelor's degree in biological sciences, including evolutionary genetics, and I've seen first-hand some of the evidence supporting evolution. What strikes me is that there is an enormity of evidence, from vastly different investigative approaches, and I'm pretty much convinced that evolution happened. I've also done a Masters in Philosophy, and I've traveled a lot, actively seeking out some of the world's major religious sites and cultures and trying to understand them. I've also investigated the history and philosophy of science
Where does that education leave me on the religion/evolution divide? It leaves me totally perplexed that the divide even exists. I'm from the UK, and it seems to me that it's largely an American thing (at least in Christian culture). The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church in the world and one of the oldest (I think it vies with the Eastern Orthodox Church in claims to follow an unbroken lineage from Christ - but don't quote me on that as I'm not an expert). It's way older than the US as a country, and way older than Anglicanism (which didn't split from the Church of Rome until Henry VIII). The Catholic Church asserts that Christian faith and human evolution are not in conflict, and does not insist on a creation vs evolution dichotomy. It was Stephen Jay Gould who famously asserted that religion and science represented "non-overlapping magisteria". I think he was wrong, which is an opinion I appear to share with the Pope.
On to Intelligent Design, a subject I have read a lot about. The claim is that irreducible complexity is not scientific, and that does indeed seem to be the scientific consensus - and my opinion, your opinion, JzG's opinion are utterly irrelevant as far as Wikipedia goes. Only the balance of opinion in reliable sources is what counts. As an aside, the idea of irreducible complexity is that of something whose complexity can not be reduced without destroying its function - but it does not define any way to determine whether such reduction would destroy function, but simply appears to assert that examples are irreducible based on analogy and "I can't see how..." argument (which is often described as the argument from personal incredulity). That is absolutely not using the scientific method. Additionally, every one of the examples of irreducible complexity suggested by the Discovery Institute (at the time I was reading about it) has been disproved - by identifying a more reduced but still functional alternative. Reducing something is an absolute disproof of alleged irreducibility. So there's nothing wrong whatsoever in describing anything based on irreducible complexity as unscientific, at least in Wikipedia's voice, because that is overwhelmingly the majority position of the scientific world.
Next, Gunter Bechly. I can't offer anything on him, because all I know of him is what I've read in Wikipedia. I don't know what he has said about Intelligent Design, so I can't comment on that. But, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District legal case did conclude that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that is almost unanimously supported by the scientific world. So creationist support for Intelligent Design must be very carefully used, at least in Wikipedia which is all we care about here. Again, it's not my opinion, yours, or JzG's that counts, it's the weight of reliable sources.
So what's the point of all this? It's essentially background to answering your question of what it would take to establish a prejudicial motive on User:JzG's behalf. I'd say it would need evidence of persistent attempts to impose his own personal viewpoint in contradiction to the academic consensus. I'm not seeing that, and I don't think you have any chance of supporting it.
Where do we go from here? My view is that your block was within justified admin discretion. But I'd like to see you unblocked to work on the areas you describe. If you were to drop the accusations of admin misconduct against JzG over the block, and agree to not do the things you were blocked for (which you do appear to be doing), I'd like to help you in your quest to return. It might take a discussion at WP:AN, but I could help to facilitate that. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll ask everybody to not post any more comments here, however well-intentioned. This should stop, and it hardly seems fair to stop it by revoking Snoopydaniel's talkpage access when all they do is respond to what other people bring here. For you, Snoopydaniels, please also don't post here further, except in the form of another formal unblock request, if you wish to make one. Note, I'm baffled by the focus so far in your unblock requests on the supposed three "reasons given by the blocking administrator", insisting those reasons included edits from nearly a decade ago, etc. [1] The only reason given by the blocking admin was not being here to build an encyclopedia — I've checked several times, and yes, that was it — so arguing in your unblock requests with reasons somebody else may have proposed elsewhere doesn't make any sense. Instead, I'd advise you to post an unblock request where you attempt to show that you are here to build an encyclopedia, by telling us what you intend to do if you should be unblocked — "what and how you will edit constructively", as Dlohcierekim put it. Admins' patience with requests that don't address the actual reason given for the block is running out, and your talkpage access is likely to be revoked if you post another one of those. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC).