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 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)

Thanks for reaching out. I found Wikipedia: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)

@RoySmith: 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 Wikipedia: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)

@Robert McClenon: 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 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)

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 23:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

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)

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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 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 is instead considered disruptive.

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 that is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 bludgeoning the [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 is instead considered disruptive. 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 that is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 bludgeoning the [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 is instead considered disruptive. 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 that is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 bludgeoning the [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 [[WP:Deletion review/log/2018 April 17|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 is instead considered disruptive. 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 that is considered inappropriate conduct for Wikipedia as well. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}