User talk:Snoopydaniels

Adoption
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)
 * No problem. If there's anything you need, let me know. Swarm Talk 17:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blaire White / pronoun usage
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 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)
 * Thanks for reaching out. I found Gender_identity after I first made my edits. However, that page is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. It does not represent an editorial consensus. As such, my edits certainly cannot be considered vandalistic. Meanwhile, my edits are no more disruptive than those editors who insist upon reverting mine for ideological reasons. You'll notice that they immediately attributed my edits to "transphobia," which is an ideologically loaded term. Snoopydaniels (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from making further edits to the paste unless I don't hear from you for a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the Manual of style, identity section for official guidelines on this issue. The talk page for trans woman Laverne Cox shows a history of problems with the same issue, where it has been treated as vandalism. - Robin Foxgloved (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: Blaire_White's talk page also has a header instructing editors to use female pronouns. Foxgloved (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you provided just takes me to a generic article about style guides. And you just added that header to the talk page about female pronouns. It is not binding upon me or any other editors. Unless you can provide me with an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline requiring the use of the subject's preferred pronouns, then I will continue to insist that this and all similar articles use factual pronouns. Wikipedia is an **encyclopedia**, not a vehicle for people to live out their subjective fantasies. Snoopydaniels (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Link fixed; please see my talk page for more commentary - another editor has stepped in with clarification. Foxgloved (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoopy
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)
 * @KoshVorlon I really appreciate your kind and friendly advice. I realize what a hotbutton issue this is and I know that the standards of editor conduct are quite high. This has been partly an experiment on my part, since I had little hope of being able to make much of an impact in the current environment. I am learning a lot along the way.
 * I'm not sure what I've said, though, that could get me sanctioned. I can't think of anything I have posted that violates Wikipedia's rules of conduct. If I have, please let me know. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Günter Bechly DRV
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)
 * I honestly have no idea how that happened. That edit deleted my own argument as well. As you'll notice if you look closely, I wrote several paragraphs laying out the case for undeletion, including many sources.
 * I must have had my original post open in one of my browser tabs, and accidentally submitted it. Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Snoopydaniels - I will add something to the admonition that you received at COIN. (We agree that you are not editing for pay and do not appear to have a conflict of interest otherwise.)  Your persistent assertion that in the entire DRV discussion you were the only editor who was addressing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that everyone else was acting in bad faith, really are characteristic of an editor who views Wikipedia as a battleground.  Whether you are right or wrong, sometimes it is wise to accept that you are in a minority.  If so, it is permitted to disagree with the majority, but censuring the majority for bad faith is indicative of I didn't hear that and of an unwillingness to edit collaboratively.  One administrator said that they would have blocked you for disruptive editing if they were not already involved.  If you really continue to think that Wikipedia is a place where almost everyone is wrong and you are right, then maybe you aren't the person to reform it.  Maybe you should find a web site with other editors who share your opinions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, I don't have an opinion on whether the article on Bechly should have been deleted or whether it should be rewritten and restored. I can't see the original article and haven't researched the matter.  However, what I did see in the second deletion review was one editor, you, who apparently doesn't believe in good faith and civility.  It really does look as though  you don't believe in good faith and civility.  Maybe you can learn and change.  If not, you will keep being dragged to the noticeboards, and will eventually wind up getting banned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to reach out.
 * I definitely understand the battleground point, and I will take it to heart. I don't know what I said that was uncivil, but I definitely have a higher tolerance for confrontation than most people.
 * I'm perfectly willing to learn and change, but I need specifics, which few people have been able to provide. I haven't claimed that nobody participating in the DRV linked to policies and guidelines or that nobody attempted to couch their arguments in terms of policies and guidelines. What I have been consistently saying is that none of them were giving any specifics. They provided token links and gestures, but none of them actually quoted relevant language from those policies and guidelines. That is an objective fact that is easy for anyone to confirm just by reading the discussion.
 * I did quote specific, relevant language from policies and guidelines. But instead of the other editors saying "oh, yeah, you're right; that policy page does say that," I was just ignored or chastised for trying to carry the discussion forward. For example, one of the editors complained that certain sources from the previous DRV did not constitute WP:SIGCOV because Dr. Bechly was not the main subject of the sources. But WP:SIGCOV specifically says that the subject does not have to be the main subject of the source in order to constitute significant coverage. I don't know how anyone can expect me to believe that a lack of intellectual honesty and bad faith is not at work here when someone blatantly ignores direct quotes from policies and guidelines.
 * It is much easier to be wrong than it is to be right. Being right takes effort. So most people are going to be wrong most of the time. And I'm not going to pretend that I'm wrong when I'm staring at policy pages that directly contradict what other editors are saying. There has to be some recourse other than to just allow the flagrant violations to continue.Snoopydaniels (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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)

April 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears 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:. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Did you see my most recent revision of the request?Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Off-the-Wall Comments
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)
 * I appreciate your evenhandedness, but editing an article to reflect reality is not a "vindictive attack." Blaire White has stated himself that he is critical of the hysteria surrounding "misgendering" people and favors a practical approach (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itepqoaLpc&feature=youtu.be) It does, however, violate MOS:GENDERID, which is why I stopped editing once I learned about that section of the style guide.Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated my unblock request commensurate with the guide to appealing blocks.Snoopydaniels (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * If your goal is to convince me that you understand the reason for your block and that you will no longer edit in a disruptive or tendentious manner, you have fallen quite short.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that an editor has to treat the policies and guidelines like the Bible in order to abide by them? I don't know about you, but I live in a real world full of rules I don't agree with, but I still abide by them. Two of the three reasons cited for the block we're examples of things I stopped doing when I learned of the applicable policies and guidelines (one of them almost ten years ago.) How can you possibly construe those as evidence of WP:NOTHERE? And I explained in detail the confusion that led to me bludgeoning the process. It seems like you're just trying to break my will at this point. Agreeing with you is not a prerequisite for an unblock.
 * See User:Robert McClenon's comments above. Even he disagrees with the indef block. Snoopydaniels (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Snoopy:-
 * I think your best prospects lay in reading and comprehending this essay and reframing your unblock request. Also, take a peek at this guideline, for as things are currently looking, the prospects of any unblock is remotely bleak.
 * As a side note, IMO, your best chance as to an article on Gunter was to capitalise on RoySmith's closing comments and take a de-novo approach. But now, that you not only failed to do so but in the process, have literally consumed the patience of everybody who dealt with your misplaced antics and wikilawyering tactics, you may choose to stay off from anything to do with Gunter and Co.and mention that in your next unblock request.
 * Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric  15:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * fwiw I am fine with Guy's approach. This very recent remark at my talk page where Snoopydaniels said 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)
 * Absurdity heaped upon absurdity. Please show me where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state that adding new content is the only valuable form of contribution to the encyclopedia. How could you possibly construe the desire to bring content into alignment with the community's standards a bad thing for the encyclopedia? Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits are from one very clear POV, not per sources, not per community policies and guidelines, not per the mission of WP. You are on your own mission. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only edits I have made since I was a stripling were to Blair White which I ceased and desisted from as soon as another editor pointed me to the relevant section of the MOS. I also made other edits to that article to fix some abysmal grammar and diction, but everyone is conveniently ignoring that.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See above. I will not be replying further. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Still Off-the-Wall Comments
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)
 * First of all, misspelling the name was not intentional. I didn't even realize that I did that. If you bother to do any research about Blaire White, you will find out that he is an outspoken conservative commentator who is very critical of fellow transgenders and transgender advocates. He espouses many of the same views I do, so the "vindictive attack" narrative doesn't wash. If anything, I have a motive to promote him and his Wikipedia article.
 * To your other points, I'm not sure how I'm digging a hole for myself. I never described Wikipedia in those terms. I have said that it is often a poor source of information about controversial topics. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia per se. The policies and guidelines are basically sound. It has to do with human nature, and the fact that rules don't enforce themselves. Opinionated people are naturally drawn to controversial subjects, and if a majority of editors and/or admins want an article to say something, then that's what it is going to say regardless of what the policies and guidelines say. The policies and guidelines enable that to some extent by emphasizing consensus, discouraging confrontation, and openly stating that rules can and should be ignored if it prevents you from improving Wikipedia. So it all boils down to whichever point of view has a majority of active and technically privileged editors. Under such circumstances, the only remedy is for more editors to get involved, preferably impartial ones, but if not impartial, at least able to counter-balance existing biases. (Note that I do understand that some amount of bias is inevitable and appropriate for an encyclopedia, such as the presumption against fringe theories, although the definition of "fringe" is not exactly clear to me.)
 * I have no desire to subvert the policies and guidelines, even though I think a few of them need to be improved. I have made every attempt to understand them and abide by them. I genuinely believed that the WP:CONSENSUS empowered me to engage with and challenge individual editors in an attempt to bring them around or hold their feet to the fire. But few of them wanted to entertain that. They just kept throwing WP:BLUDGEON in my face, even though that is an essay and not a policy or a guideline.
 * As far as I can tell, my only genuine infraction has been to push the boundaries of the conduct guidelines. The invective I used was well-earned, and I cannot apologize. But if my editing privileges are ever restored, I will refrain from such behavior in the future, if only to prevent another block. If all I cared about was pushing my viewpoint and being disruptive then I wouldn't waste all of this time trying to persuade people. I would just use WP:IGNORE as an excuse to do whatever I want, including using sock puppetry to circumvent this ridiculous, prejudicial block. Snoopydaniels (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. If having a point of view disqualifies someone from editing Wikipedia, then the admin who blocked me should himself be blocked since he clearly has his own point of view. In fact, nobody should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, because everyone has a point it view. You didn't think this through.Snoopydaniels (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only response I can really offer to that is that my decline is not based on your having your own point of view - I respect that. I have my own points of view too, but I do my best to leave them at the door on my way in to Wikipedia. In particular, I do not speak of those with different views to my own in derogatory terms. I've often seen people attacking evolution as a religion, and others attacking religion as a delusion - and those are two examples of anti-collegial expression that should have no place on Wikipedia. And I did think this through, having been pondering it and examining the background on and off since I first saw your unblock request in the early hours of the morning (BST). I certainly see merit in some of what you say, and I'd like to see you back and editing in those areas in which you have expertise. But, as I say, your unblock request does not convince me that you will leave the combative approach behind - and so my balance of thought fell on the side of declining your request. You are, of course, welcome to make a new unblock request which someone else will review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable concern. I would think that context matters, though. This is an unblock request, a response to a specific action by a specific user who exhibited the attitude of someone who treats Darwinism as a religion and had an ideological interest in blocking me. Also, does any of this justify an indefinite block? Another editor who commented on my talk page thought an indefinite block, specifically, was not called for, and he did not have all of the information you just reviewed. Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indefinite is only for as long as it takes to make a convincing unblock request, and in many cases it can be a very short block. I see you are continuing with your approach of attacking the motives of the blocking admin, which has not so far led to your desired result. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the blocking admin's motives are being so lightly cast aside. I would think that blocking someone or setting block conditions based upon ideological disagreements, in whole or in part, is unacceptable. It seems far more pernicious than any other sort of action since you can temporarily or permanently remove those who might otherwise check your actions, or hold them up with red tape, simply by making an accusation.Snoopydaniels (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But that is based on your assumption that you know the blocking admin's motives and that you are blocked for "ideological disagreements". The admins (including me) who have reviewed your unblock requests so far do not appear to see that as the case. Anyway, As I've said, you are free to make a new unblock request and to approach it in whichever way you see fit. I honestly don't think I can help any further here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indulge me one last follow-up question. What would it take to establish a prejudicial motive, short of an editor explicitly admitting it? In this case, in the post on the Administrative noticeboard, the blocking admin made a point of denouncing Intelligent Design as unscientific and denouncing Gunter Bechly as a creationist. Even if he were a creationist, how are Gunter Bechly's views relevant to the discussion unless the blocking editor had ideological reasons for the block? Do you honestly believe that he had no such motivations, or that they weren't the primary motive? How is it that the blocking editor just so happens to be vocally opposed to ID and Gunter Bechly?Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll give you a few thoughts on that (in part because there are some subjects here that greatly interest me as much as part of your unblock ambitions), but I'll need a little time (and probably quite a lot of words). I'd probably need to offer some idea of my own background, but I really don't want to be detailed in my personal opinions. My ideal is that it should be impossible to deduce my beliefs based on what I write, because striving for that helps me strive for neutrality (and given that in my time I've been accused of being an atheist, a Christian apologist, an anti-atheist, a paid Hindu activist, a lefty liberal and a Trump/Putin lackey among other things, I think I'm doing a reasonable job of it ;-) Give me a little time and I'll get back to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * Your background is fascinating, and your resume of labels is quite impressive. :) I would love to discuss the subjects you brought up in more detail at another time and place.
 * Your approach sounds very successful. My theory of Wikipedia participation was that I would make no attempt to conceal my own views while making a strenuous effort to not violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the purpose being to give others editors the ability to take my views into account. The reason behind this, of course, is that people can think they are being impartial even when they are not.
 * As an example of this editing philosophy, I was advocating that Gunter Bechly's Wikipedia article be undeleted on the grounds that he is notable both generally and as an academic. My knowledge of and interest in Dr. Bechly obviously stems from my interest in the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, but that is only problematic if my actions conflict with policy. Meanwhile, the undeletion of the article is no guarantee that this article would end up describing him in any favorable light, and I was perfectly prepared to accept that as long as it was done consistent with the content guidelines.
 * Obviously all I have accomplished by not keeping my opinions closer to the chest is to paint a huge target on my back, even if I'm doing it for good reasons. It is not in my nature to conceal my opinions, but it looks like I'm going to have to if I want to contribute.
 * I totally understand that Wikipedia articles have to be based on the preponderance of "reliable" sources, even if that is occasionally at the expense of the truth, whatever you believe truth to be. (I put scare quotes around "reliable" because there are some nuances to WP:RS that make "reliable" misleading.) It's just the nature of an encyclopedia. I also understand that JzG's views are supported by the preponderance of such sources. If he had been arguing that my edits violated WP:RS or WP:FRINGE or the like, then the scientific status of Intelligent Design or Dr. Bechly's status as a "creationist" might have been relevant to the block. Instead, he was accusing me of WP:NOTHERE, and just interjected his personal disagreements. That is what convinces me that his actions were at least partially ideologically motivated. Nevertheless, I'm willing to drop admin misconduct accusations.
 * I appreciate the time you've taken to address this situation, and I will do everything I can to make sure you do not regret it.Snoopydaniels (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I go ahead and submit another unblock request, or did you have something else in mind involving WP:AN?Snoopydaniels (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Snoopydaniels, you do not appear to have understood the context of my comment. I reviewed your very limited editing history. I found that:
 * Your early edits promoted the idea that irreducible complexity is a scientific concept. It isn't, it's a religious not a scientific view. That's a simple statement of fact.
 * Your next mainspace edits were then to Blaire White, edit-warring to restore misgendering. Read that link. Again, that's a simple statement of fact.
 * You then agitated for the restoration of the article on Günter Bechly. You say I "denounce" Bechly as a creationist. He is a fellow at the Discotute, so again, that's a simple statement of fact. You can't denounce someone for something they clearly embrace.
 * So you have a very limited edit history and all of it is contentious. You have edited in a way that is characteristic of those who are here to advance a point of view rather than to edit collaboratively and respect consensus. And you have no history of objectively valid edits. Your history is short, you have edited only those three things, and in every case your edits are characteristic of a specific religious worldview. I am sure you sincerely believe that intelligent design is science and Blaire White is really a man, and in fact that is the problem: long experience suggests that people who come here to "correct" our "bias" on such matters, have a short and turbulent history, usually ending in blocks and bans. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair summary, but I'm encouraged by Snoopydaniels's agreement to not make changes to those areas now he knows more of the relevant Wikipedia policies. With an expressed interest in working in the relatively uncontroversial subject areas of software engineering and information technology, I could support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything you have said is consistent with a certain world view as well. It is secular, but still involves prior philosophical commitments. The only difference between us is that you views are in the majority among those in positions of influence, which makes it possible for you to hide behind consensus if you wish to. That would be consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in many or most cases, but no less biased.
 * It has never been my intention to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In each case, I thought I was acting consistent with those guidelines. In the most recent case, I'm still not entirely clear what I did wrong that merits inclusion in your list, except for the fact that you disagree with what you perceive to be Dr. Bechly's views. I believed that the editors involved either misunderstood the content policies and guidelines or were not being objective, and I was convinced that if a broader cross-section of the community saw what had unfolded, they would agree. I also thought that editors were obliged to consider sources provided in a DRV, and that they had to provide detailed reasons for their support or opposition with respect to a community decision like that, so I pressed this issue. I still maintain that they neither considered the sources nor provided sufficient reasons grounded in concrete policy prescriptions. What other recourse is there other than to seek a higher level of dispute resolution?
 * I cannot promise that I will not attempt to improve articles related to Intelligent Design, but before I would do so, I would want to have a conversation with someone like User:Boing! said Zebedee to make sure that my proposed actions are consistent with all of the relevant policies and guidelines and not counterproductive.
 * P.S. I agree that misgendering is a word, and that has a definition, conceived of by a small minority of society. That doesn't make it a legitimate transgression, nor does it mean that it should play any role in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would love to see the reliable, secondary sources that state that gendered pronouns and words primarily refer to a person's gender identity rather than their biological sex. I'm also waiting for someone to explain how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are consistent with reporting a person's perception of himself as fact, instead of something that is objectively verifiable. Whether or not their perception is correct, it's not verifiable. It would be no different from reporting that someone is a CIA agent based on their word alone.Snoopydaniels (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Evolution is not a secular worldview, it is the scientific conclusion from the observed facts. Committed religionists often find this difficult to grok. Science is not an atheist enterprise, it is an enterprise that relies on empirical fact rather than authority (real or supernatural). The Royal Society's motto, coined in the 17th Century, is nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it. Religious Truth is irrelevant to science. See . Scientists of faith, park their faith when conducting science. And when they don't, when they try to manufacture an appearance of science to support a pre-existing religious belief, as with intelligent design, then they are engaging in pseudoscience and that will impact on their scientific reputation. That is a fact that pre-dates Wikipedia, the findings of fact in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District speak for themselves. Wikipedia is fact-based, not Truth-based. If you want a Truth-based project, try Conservapedia.
 * You have no idea what my religious views are, and they are not relevant to this discussion. Note that even within Christianity, creationism is a minority view (see Acceptance of evolution by religious groups). The nexus of creationism and transphobia is strongly identified with the American religious right, and even that is not relevant here. The relevant fact is that 100% of your edits advance that fringe agenda. That is the problem. There are plenty of right wing editors. There are Christian fundamentalist editors. But people whose entire short editing history consists of stoking drama in furtherance of that agenda against consensus, tend not to last long. Wikipedia policies strongly favour empirically established reality when discussing evolution, and policy and practice also strongly support self-identity in trans people per WP:BLP.
 * We understand that there are people for whom these policies cause massive cognitive dissonance. We recognise that for some people their entire philosophy is inconsistent with Wikipedia's deference to fact rather than Truth. The settled view of the Wikipedia community is that this is not our problem to fix, our values are not those of any specific religion or none, they are what they are and you can either accept them or go elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already stated in a dozen different ways that I not only accept but broadly approve of Wikipedia's content guidelines. I am less enthusiastic about how they seem to be inconsistently and selectively applied. Attempting to see them consistently and correctly applied (at least as I understood them at the time) may or may not advanced a particular worldview, but it is not merely advancing a worldview. You may be advancing your worldview every time you edit, but because it happens to be the consensus view, you are not violating any policies or guidelines.
 * I never said that evolution is a secular worldview. I said that it is characteristic of a secular worldview. (The religious groups that accept "evolution" almost invariably have in mind a gradual process in which God played a direct or indirect role, which directly conflicts with the definition of evolution as an unguided process.) Still more characteristic of that worldview is the dogmatic insistence that evolution is an unassailable fact, and that anyone who disagrees with it must be ipso facto religiously motivated. A scientist's interpretation of the facts can be wrong or in the minority without being pseudoscientific or religious. Unless you worship at the altar of Darwin and his faithful disciples and feel oblidged to not only disagree with but also disparage heretics.Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article Acceptance of evolution by religious groups shows, acceptance of evolution is not characteristic of a secular worldview. By contrast, the belief that irreducible complexity is science is characteristic of a specific religious worldview, as backed by findings of fact in court cases. Edit-warring to include that, and to misgender a trans person, is what a POV-warrior does. Normally we then offset that against the value of anyone's contributions outside their obvious hot-button area. You have none. In eight years you have edited exactly three articles, all your edits have been speedily reverted, and in two of the three cases you proceeded to edit-war. 12 edits to mainspace, 8 edits to Talk, and the rest - over 90% of your 238 edits - has been argufying about the pushback you got. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That article says what I wrote earlier. The religious groups in question don't "accept" evolution. They modify evolutionary theory to make it compatible with their theology. So belief in evolution (the actual theory of evolution and not a bastardized version) is characteristic of a secular world view. And even if religious groups did in fact accept evolution, the idea did not originate with religious thinkers. It originated with secular and even anti-religious thinkers, and in that sense will always be characteristic of a secular world view.
 * I'm not sure how court cases are relevant to the discussion. A "finding of fact" is just a judge's opinion of what the facts show. A judge's opinion is not a reliable source of scientific statements and claims. Judges have no scientific training. They are not qualified to adjudicate scientific debates and questions. The repeated emphasis on that trial throughout articles covering intelligent design is one of my main policy concerns with their content, and it is a point I would really like clarification on, . I don't see how a judge's decision can possibly be construed as a reliable source except for statements about that judge's opinion and statements about the trial's outcome.
 * Another thing you may be able to clarify is reliable sources in the context of participants in a scientific debates where the outcome of the debate affects their own credibility, prestige, world view, or financial interests. I don't see how anything a Richard Dawkins or Kent Hovind, to take an extreme example, can be considered reliable sources of scientific statements, when each of them has a vested interest in the truth of their respective theories.
 * JzG is confusing actions that are intended to bring Wikipedia articles in alignment with facts and a neutral point of view with actions intended to push a non-neutral point of view. The statement that "irreducible complexity is a scientific theory" says absolutely nothing about whether or not it is correct. There are all kinds of scientific theories that are false. What makes them scientific is not whether or not they are correct, but whether or not they embody scientific methods, bearing in mind that there are all kinds of scientific methods no consensus among philosophers of science on what is and what is not science. (See Demarcation problem.)
 * Meanwhile, calling a transgender person by their preferred pronoun instead of the one that reflects their biological sex is, by definition not a neutral point of view. It is the subjective point of view of the subject. No part of that argument is predicated on religious premises. "Misgendering", meanwhile, assumes that a person's perceived gender is their actual gender AND that personal pronouns should correspond to a person's perceived gender. Neither one of those is the subject of any kind of consensus outside of Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, and so the decision to use a person's preferred pronouns in the style guide is likely driven by a political agenda.
 * The sorts of edits I have made wouldn't be necessary if certain Wikipedia editors were following the rules. They are to blame for promoting a biased point of view, not the person who is trying to correct them. You might not agree with my assessment, but just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are biased advocates. I am still learning the policies and guidelines, and have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to change my behavior when someone takes the time to explain them to me.
 * Since it's hardly likely that anyone could convince you of anything, least of all me, perhaps you would assent to a conditional or probationary unblock. I have much to offer Wikipeda, and your would be shooting yourselves in the foot to alienate me.Snoopydaniels (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop
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. 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 &#124; talk 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm addressing the precise rationales the blocking admin gave for his WP:NOTHERE accusation.Snoopydaniels (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wanted the reviewing admins to take that ANI note by JzG into account, it would have been a good idea to provide the diff to it in your unblock requests; I'm not sure how you expected them to be aware of it. I don't believe it would have made a difference, though, since in any case, what you need to do is focus on the block rationale you were actually given, in the actual block notice, here on your page: WP:NOTHERE. For myself, I find your attempt in your second unblock request to argue that you have already shown yourself to be WP:HERE quite weak. That's because in reference to the diff in the block log (this diff), you say "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." My italics. Er, no, what you did as soon as you were pointed to MOS:GENDERID was go to the guideline and try to change it with some hardcore wikilawyering about a supposed conflict with WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. Also, you really don't know why JzG picked that diff as a good example of WP:NOTHERE for the block log, do you? Hint: its the edit summary. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
 * I thought there was some kind of connection between the notification JzG placed on the noticeboard and the actual block. I certainly would have provided a link if I had known otherwise.
 * Regarding that edit summary, if you look at this earlier edit summary, you'll see that mine was almost a word-for-word parody.
 * I'm not sure how the fact that I took my disagreement to a more appropriate forum, instead of engaging in disruptive editing, is not self-correction. When it was obvious that there was no buy-in, I let the matter drop. Whether or not you consider what I did to be Wikilawyering depends entirely upon whether or not you agree with the argument I was making.
 * I appreciate you taking the time to give me some constructive criticism. Snoopydaniels (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)