User talk:Stan Giesbrecht

October 2017: warning[edit]

Hi again, Stan. You will remember I blocked you in January 2017, per above, for abuse of Talk:On the Origin of Species. I see you have returned to your old ways, I don't know for how long, but I noticed some very long posts, including this example only yesterday. Please note that it's not the role of Wikipedia editors to argue with sources, which seems to be your favoured approach; that would be original research. If you consider a source unreliable, please take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard for wider input and more eyes; don't badmouth scholars and academics, such as Janet Browne, Geoffrey Hodgson, and Richard Dawkins, on article talk. In view of Wikipedia's articles on these people, I don't think your "vortex of bullshit" attacks on Browne etc are likely to find agreement on any board, but you can try. Though please be more careful when talking about living people. Calling Hodgson a "so-called academic" and the like could get you blocked for WP:BLP violations if you don't rein it in.

Wikipedia articles go by scholarly sources, however much you call them "so-called scholarly sources" and "fake news" [sic]. They don't go by your, or anybody's, own interpretations of the primary sources. If you want your own findings about Darwin to find a place in the article, you'll first have to publish them as an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or as a book with a respectable (preferably academic) publisher. If you continue to bludgeon the discussion on talk:OTOOS, by not (apparently) listening to what other people say, and by picking out bits of policies and guidelines without regard for the spirit of the whole, you will be blocked again. The time and energy of constructive editors are our most precious resource, and you're frankly squandering it. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I see you're editing: did you read the above? I should perhaps also have mentioned that you need to stop edit warring on the article and stop with the personal attacks, both of which you have continued with after my warning.[1][2] Personal attacks were part of the reason you were blocked in January, and I addressed them at some length in that context: short comment here, long comment specifically concerning your attacks on Dave Souza here. You need to "comment on content, not on the contributor." I'm quoting the focal sentence of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, complete with the bolding in the original. Do you see how Dave Souza speaks of your argument, here, not about you? You're supposed to respond the same way, without stuff like "Sounds like someone thinks they own the article" or "we all know your history with secondary sources contradicting your POV-pushing", "your bullshit POV", "your current request for secondary sources is not in good faith", etc. That kind of thing creates a hostile atmosphere on talkpages, and lowers everybody's energy. Please pay more attention to our central policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPA, and less to dubious essays such as WP:TURNIP and (especially) WP:TAGTEAM. To summarise: stop talking about how Dave Souza "should run a blog", etc etc, and stop edit warring, or you will be blocked. It will be a longer block than the last. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I actually came here to administer a block of at least a month for continuing edit warring on On the Origin of Species and excessive bludgeoning of discussion and inappropriate focus on editors (not arguments) on Talk:On the Origin of Species. But, I see that Bishonen has a bit more patience than I, so consider this a double-down on their warning from an uninvolved admin. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spike, no, I'm all out of patience too. The reason I warned yet again was simply because I've already blocked the editor twice. You're a much better admin to do the deed — I wouldn't want SG to get the impression that blocking him is just a personal obsession of mine. I totally agree: at least a month. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'll take my intended action, in that case. This situation is way outside of bounds of what the community should tolerate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for resuming your edit warring on On the Origin of Species after your prior block (for the same reason) lifted, in spite of what appears to be unanimous disagreement with you from multiple other editors. Wikipedia offers a number of legitimate ways to resolve disputes; disrupting an article's stability by revert-warring isn't one of them. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely, tp access removed[edit]

Stan Giesbrecht, you have never appealed a block in the normal way (i. e. per the instructions in the block notice). Instead you have systematically waited till first your three-month block, and then the current six-month block, had only days to run, before posting long and polemical arguments attacking published authors as well as Wikipedia editors. That's not what this page is for; you are using Wikipedia as a webhost or as your blog. That's putting it politely. I will blank your texts as well as your access to editing this page — I think that courtesy has been extended too long as it is — and blocked you indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia. See below for how you can now appeal the block. See the history tag for how you can retrieve your texts, in case you wish to publish them elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)

Seriously, Stan. I wish you had taken to heart my closing remarks in my previous reply. Instead of following my suggestion to create an unblock appeal, you have made things worse. Until another admin reviews an actual unblock appeal (which must now be via UTRS) that's reasonably concise and demonstrates you have understood WP:GAB, I cannot be involved further. In your appeal, I advise you not to make excuses for, or rationalize, your actions when the reviewing admin knows that you knew of other avenues available to resolve both content and behavioral disputes. Focus on you alone, not the dispute, not on others. Invoking IAR for your convenience in a dispute is guaranteed to bear no fruit. I really don't know what else to say. I tried to help. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Stan Giesbrecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23895 was submitted on Feb 05, 2019 16:31:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Stan Giesbrecht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23905 was submitted on Feb 07, 2019 19:14:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]