User talk:4444ED
Soapboxing[edit]
Every single one of your edits consist of promoting the idea of creationism. Wikipedia is not the place to convince others of your belief system. If you continue to use Wikipedia to soapbox your belief system your account will be blocked.
You are welcome to improve the encyclopedia in an area where you can work without exhibiting such an extreme bias. Chillum 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Young Earth creationism. --Mr Fink (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros Could you explain why your opinion is that my discussions are 'inappropriate'?
- That you characterize literally anything that is not explicitly pro-Young Earth Creationism as being anti-Young Earth Creationism, and that you insist that pages be given a more neutral point of view by having them rewritten to be pro-Young Earth Creationism propaganda pieces, which would actually compromise their neutrality.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros I have not done anything of what you are claiming here. I am not "characteriz[ing] literally anything that is not explicitly pro-Young Earth Creationism as being anti-Young Earth Creationism" and I am not "insist[ing] that pages be given a more neutral point of view by having them rewritten to be pro-Young Earth Creationism propaganda pieces". I HAVE posted my opinion on how to improve articles, which is encouraged in Wikipedia. I have not edit warred or done anything worthy of blocking.
Wikipedia:Banning policy states:
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:
persistent personal attacks; personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); actions placing users in danger; actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection; disclosures of others' personal information (whether or not the information is accurate); persistent copyright violations; persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons; or an account appearing to have been compromised (as an emergency measure), i.e. there is some reason to believe the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account.
A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
vandalism; gross incivility; harassment; spamming; edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule; breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy; attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite. Disruption-only See also: Wikipedia:Username policy § Usernames violating the BLP policy Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:
Accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism. Public accounts (where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group). Accounts with inappropriate usernames. Bots operating without approval or outside their approval. Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.
I do not see my case listed in WP:Blocking Policy. 4444ED (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chillum 04:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)See WP:SPA, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:NOTHERE for details on why your behavior is not acceptable here. There are plenty of places on the internet where you are allowed to try to convince people of creationism and a young Earth, our encyclopedia is not one of them.
To any reviewing admin please see removed warnings in user's talk page history. Chillum 04:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are interested in making an encyclopedia you are welcome to edit areas where you don't have such a strong conflict of interest as long as you do not engage in advocacy. If you would agree to a topic ban from any topic relating to the origin of man or the Earth broadly construed then I would be willing to reverse the block. If you are just here to advocate creationism then this is the wrong place. Chillum 04:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
4444ED (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not here for the sole reason of pushing my POV. I enjoy reading a variety of Wikipedia articles, however, when I noticed how biased some articles were, I attempted to civilly talk about it by posting two threads, encouraging NPOV. Both threads were unreasonably deleted, and I was blocked indefinitely. I haven´t engaged in edit wars, personal attacks, or anything listed in the Blocking Policy. I am not promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. I have not been repetitive. I deleted a warning for two reasons: 1)I have not done anything that would necessitate a block, and 2)I was hesitant about using my talk page for personal reasons. I believe I was blocked for trying to promote NPOV and that my being blocked goes against policy. I am considering sending an email to the Arbitration Committee. 4444ED (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on your unblock request, if unblocked, you would continue as you have done so far. In this context, I'm declining your appeal to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (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.
I already said that if you agree to avoid creationism related topics I would unblock you. I can only assume your unwillingness to accept this will mean that you will just go back to trying to push religious beliefs in scientific articles. If you really think that arguing for creatism in an article about evolution is neutral then there is a competency issue.
The fact that pushing religious ideas in scientific articles is not appropriate has been explained to you several times by multiple users. It is clearly your sole purpose for being here, as you have already been offered an unblock if you avoid these areas. Chillum 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Chillum Apparently you did not read or understand my reasons. I am not pushing a religious belief, I am encouraging NPOV. I was not arguing for Creationism in an evolution article, but arguing for NPOV. This is especially true of the thread I posted on the YEC article. I am not taking the unblock because that would show I am content with the biased writing on Wikipedia. I am a new user, also. 4444ED (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You are trying to defend the idea that God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days some time between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. We present those ideas as what they are, religeous beliefs. The idea of a 10,000 year old universe has been contradicted by scientific evidence so insurmountable that it is clearly a myth.
We do not present myths as fact, we present them as religous beliefs and we make it clear that it does not jive with reality. We don't use such ideas in scientific articles like evolution. The fact that you think this idea deserves some sort of equal time to science is the reason we are here. Your best best to be unblocked is to agree to avoid the area.
Wikipedia is not the place to spread your belief system. Chillum 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The long of and the short of it is that you were blocked for no being here to write an encyclopedia. Let me ask you this, if you are unblocked how will you edit here? Chillum 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Chillum As I have explained multiple times to multiple people, I am not here to spread my belief system but to suggest NPOV. An article on YEC should present its arguments, not attack it; or at least allow it to present its case. I can repeat this for as many times as it takes for you to understand what I am saying. As for the question, if I was unblocked, I would continue to contribute to NPOV and probably contribute in other areas as well. 4444ED (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you are intent on continuing equating pseudo science as NPOV then I will not unblock you. An article in an encyclopedia most certainly not exist to let the subject "present its case", its purpose is to describe it as the sources describe it and the sources call the theory bunk. Perhaps you should just e-mail arbcom and see what their stance on pseudo science is. Chillum 18:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum I am not equating pseudoscience with NPOV. I can explain the whole thing again if you wish but you do not seem to want to understand. Also, there are sources such as answersingenesis (AiG) which don't call the theory bunk. 4444ED (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum Regardless of what we have been discussing (thank you for using civil discussion!) I have reviewed the block policy and I find that I am being blocked without valid reason. 4444ED (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind a comment here from me, but I've looked over your contributions and you do appear to be arguing in favour of young-earth creationism from a position of scientific ignorance. For example, the idea that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is so obviously wrong to anyone who actually understands it, and it is simply not plausible that the entirety of science over the past 150 years has overlooked the claimed problem! You say you are pursuing NPOV, but NPOV does not mean that every idea gets equal coverage - rather that each POV is represented as per the balance of reliable academic sources. I respect your right to your religious beliefs and I support your right to hold them, but Wikipedia is not the place to push them. If you wish to be unblocked here, I'd urge you to agree to avoid trying to use Wikipedia to push your religious beliefs. Squinge (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I see you have mentioned answersingenesis, but you have absolutely no chance whatsoever of having that site accepted as a reliable source here! Squinge (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Squinge No, Squinge, I don't mind. I wanted to clarify this anyway. I understand NPOV does not mean that every idea gets equal coverage. However, if an article is about YEC then the article should discuss all the opinions on the idea, not just the opinions of people who disagree with it. That agrees perfectly with NPOV policy and can be understood with just common sense. Additionally, I am not pushing my religious beliefs but arguing for neutral point of view, which seems to have vanished from many articles in Wikipedia. 4444ED (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what we have been discussing (thank you for using civil discussion!) I have reviewed the block policy and I find that I am being blocked without valid reason. 4444ED (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it can be difficult distinguishing between one's own POV and NPOV - I generally tend to think my own POV is pretty neutral ;-) As for whether the block is within policy, I think that's debatable as admins appear to enjoy relative freedom when it comes to judging conflicts between personal opinions and maintaining an encyclopedic viewpoint, but I do think your indef block was a little harsh. As you appear to have a strong view regarding creationism, I'd suggest you agree to keep away from the subject. If you did that, I'd see no valid reason for an admin to decline your unblock request. Squinge (talk)
@Squinge Thanks for your input. :) Regards, 4444ED (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Policy Violation![edit]
4444ED (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My being blocked goes against blocking policy. I have never violated Wikipedia policy. I was blocked for expressing opinion on talk pages, trying to contribute to Wikipedia. 4444ED (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you have failed, once again, to show how you would edit in any way differently (and are questioning the block itself instead of addressing your POV actions), I'm declining this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 15 March 2015 (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.
@Coffee So you're insisting that I stop peaceably expressing my opinion on how to improve Wikipedia? That would be a direct violation of policy. 4444ED (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
4444ED (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here My blocking violates several policies such as WP:Blocking policy, neutrality, civility, icanthearyou etc. and seems to be a clear case of "Wikipedia:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps" and "Wikipedia:POV railroad". If unblocked, I will make constructive edits in many areas of Wikipedia, not just science related articles. However, I cannot guarantee that I will not continue to use NPOV, which seems to be what I was blocked for..
Decline reason:
If you cite Answers in Genesis, you show that you do not understands what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. If you think that in order to be neutral we need to give all viewpoints equal weight, you haven't understood the policy on a neutral point of view. You do not explain why you think the block violates WP:CIVIL or WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and neither of those seem remotely relevant here. Proposing changes to articles based on a personal ideology rather than Wikipedia policy is disruptive, and you give no indication that the problematic behaviour would not recur if you were unblocked. Huon (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (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.
4444ED (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is not justified by WP:BLOCK policy. I have read it and even posted some of it in this page and none of those circumstances fit my case (I was not vandalizing, disrupting, warring, etc.). Plus, I had not even edited an article. In fact the true disruptive edits were the deletion of my sections two times, which is simply NOT supposed to be done. Additionally, I present(ed) a lot of valid arguments against the block, but they were ignored.
I am not here to argue about creationism or any minority viewpoint. I am here to express my concerns about the bias in Wikipedia, and violation of WP:NPOV. The policy demands that all viewpoints be described proportionately and fairly, which is not being done in Wikipedia since about 45% of Americans and an immense quantity of people elsewhere do not agree with descent with modification. We have large bodies of scientists who doubt Darwinian evolution, such as for example those at Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Additionally quite a number of Wikipedians have disagreed with the way it is being presented in Wikipedia, as shown by talk page archives. So any claimed "consensus" seems to be more of a stranglehold.
After my first section was closed and deleted, I attempted to discuss the problem in Neil N's talk page, but instead of expressing valid concerns about my edits, the user, with some others, began ridiculing my beliefs which had nothing to do with my concerns. There's civility and "equal voice" for you.
Some complain that I cited Answers in Genesis. Well, this concern is invalid and irrelevant as per Wikipedia Policy; no one claimed any policy basis for it. In fact, the policy states that biased/opinionated sources may be valuable for presenting different sides of an argument. AiG has a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, the ARJ, and this meets the criteria for trustworthy edits. Any opinion that it is "untrustworthy" or unsatisfactory is based on SUBJECTIVE arguments and not Wikipedia policy.
Clearly, the block has no policy basis and is "illegal," so to speak. Furthermore, it is an excellent example of "Wikipedia:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps" and "Wikipedia:POV railroad." Unblock my account promptly. Otherwise, I will be forced to take other actions. 4444ED (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm declining this request as I concur with the blocking admin and his assessment of your editing pattern. Also, I'm revoking talk page access, because we aren't getting anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2015 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)