User talk:Kanbei85

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Biblical manuscript, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical manuscript

Your edits were reverted by two different editors & you did not bother to start a discussion on the article's talk page after you reverted those back. This is your first warning as I am the third editor to have revert your edits. Start a discussion to discuss your changes in detail. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information you placed in the article is based on the one source you provided, which is a personal website of the scholar. A violation of WP:NOR meaning you also violate WP:NPOV. Find multiple sources with such similar ideals from different scholars to guarantee reliability, and I highly recommend reading WP:IRS, WP:V WP:P&G & WP:MOS for future reference as well as WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kanbei85 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result: ). Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read WP:Editorial which suggests avoiding "however". Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Hi Kanbei85 - it is clear you are passionate about Creationism. Lots of people are. Please take it slow and really talk with the other editors work at the page. You may find reading Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Editing_procedures helpful. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Creationism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hi Kanbei, if you revert again at Creationism, you're likely to be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please discuss the issues on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creationism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This applies equally at Colin Patterson (biologist). Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good- you're making sure that no one can dispute pages which smear groups you apparently don't want people learning about. An NPOV dispute has been started on the talk page. What authority gets to decide when an article gets flagged? Because if I do it, one of you people inevitably reverts it and then accuses ME of being in an edit war! Kanbei85 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

Colin Patterson

How about instead of assuming the worst of me in that I'm trying to censor you, you take a look at the rules for including external links. For one, it should be in alphabetical order, which your addition was not. For another, it should be directly about the subject, in this case, Colin Patterson, which your addition was not. On those two basis' alone, it should have been removed. It also is required to meet the reliable source standards, and creationism.com does not do so. It is, in addition, required to follow, in a way, the NPOV policy, meaning that it should reflect the general concensus of experts, which your source did not. Its got nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with just not belonging there.Farsight001 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, "external references" and "sources" are NOT the same thing. External references, which you tried to add, need to be directly about the subject of the article. Sources need only be relevant enough to support a statement in the article.

Second of all, I didn't look at any other references or sources. I only noticed a recent change to the article, checked it, saw it was improper, and reverted it.

As for ARN - it certainly has problems, but that particular page is a good repository of quotes by the person the article is about. Its directly relevant and takes no sides. I'm not quite sure its right enough for the article, actually, and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone, but I'm ambivalent about it.

Regarding TalkOrigins - its a science website, not an atheist website, and it has a high standard for fact checking and proper research.

The rules around here have a lot of nuance about them and can be challenging to navigate. While your block is still in effect, I highly recommend you take the time to read through them so that you might better understand them and edit more productively in the future.Farsight001 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kanbei85 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60h for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbei85, I thought I would drop a line, in the interest of hopefully helping you out. I've learned, through some amount of hardship, that probably the most important thing to do on Wikipedia is assume good faith when interacting with other users. While the environment here can sometimes become heated (and even contentious), most of us really are here to collaborate and build a better encyclopaedia.

I hope you don't interpret this as antagonism. I just saw you were having some difficulty, and thought I'd be neighbourly, so to speak.

But... Calling other users "a mob of trolls" out to "censor" you certainly isn't going to help. I know it can be really difficult to remain civil when you're being reverted... But at the very least, avoid name calling, as it never goes over well here. I also noticed a few other users genuinely wanted to be helpful, and posted a few links in their comments. Obviously, I've linked a few myself. Maybe you've already read them, but either way, it wouldn't hurt to take a second look. I don't believe anyone else posted this yet, but there's a method that's specifically used to avoid edit warring, called "WP:BRD". Check it out. The process really can help. While they might seem a bit tedious, or even common sense, these WP essays and policies are the result of over a decade of figuring out what works, and what doesn't. So they're worth reading.

If you'd like any help, or clarification, feel free to contact me on my talk page. My main user page also has a lot of useful information for editors, both novice and experienced.

We've all been where you are, especially with subjects that we're passionate about. But really, it DOES pay to be civil, and when you feel you can't do that, to walk away for a bit. Good luck. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quinto Simmaco,

Thank you for your message. I understand completely what you are talking about here, but I think you should be aware of the circumstances which led to it. It's true that I might have chosen my words more diplomatically, but what's going on here on Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to smear and misrepresent people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (creationists) in the worst possible way. Even when I try to dispute the articles on the talk page, frequently people will come in and simply delete what I've written from the talk page. There is a massive double standard at play: no one will allow me to edit the Creationism page with a POV dispute tag, despite the fact that it is, in fact, disputed, as can be seen on the talk page. The same thing happens with any article that could be remotely connected to the topic. The lesson I've learned here is this: don't bother even trying to make Wikipedia more neutral or "fair and balanced" when it comes to something controversial like this- the editors simply don't have enough respect for objectivity to allow it. If you check out the creationism page, you can see that it blatantly refers to it as "Pseudoscience"- well, sorry, but as a creationist I have to strongly disagree with that assessment, and the Ph.D. scientists I work with would as well. Why not maintain a Netural Point of View, as the guidelines demand, and let the reader decide whether they believe it's pseudoscience or not? See the problem? Well, as I said, I'm done here. It's not worth my time fighting everyone by myself, but if you are willing to do something about it, please do.

Thanks!

Kanbei85 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

We ARE maintaining a neutral point of view. NEutral point of view doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Read the relevant policy page and see for yourself. Per NPOV policy, we are essentially REQUIRED to call creation science pseudoscience.Farsight001 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farsight001,

I recently found the policy on pseudoscience you're referencing. I guess I just didn't realize how far the bias went "up the chain". Basically, Wikipedia's NPOV policy has some loopholes for certain blacklisted groups (creationists being the only one specifically named!), where the normal rules of objectivity no longer apply. Since Wikipedia has taken an official stance on this and decided to slander creationists in this way, there's no point in further discussion. Creation science is NOT pseudoscience, it's a minority scientific position that disagrees with the majority establishment. But when the majority is in the position of power to define the terms, this is the result. Fortunately, there are scientists out there speaking out against it (such as plant geneticist and inventor Dr. John Sanford of Cornell University and his colleague Dr. Robert Carter). I suppose it would be naive to think that in this climate of intellectual/academic censorship and brainwashing, that an outlet like Wikipedia could remain free of the effects. If you want legitimate information about creation science, you need look no further than creation.com. Kanbei85 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

Handsomefella,

I've removed your off-topic and condescending rant on my wall about free speech/censorship, since you clearly didn't read anything I've said on this, even though it's right above where you posted, so you didn't know that this isn't about *me*, it's about Wikipedia's discriminatory policies and blatant misrepresentation/slander of Biblical Creationists. Remember, as you said, you don't have a right, but a privilege, to post here.Kanbei85 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

It may have been off-topic with regard to what the core of the dispute was, but since you invoked the keywords "freedom of speech" and "censorship", I thought I'd give you a hint that neither applies here. It wasn't a rant, and it wasn't condescending. It was in good faith (you might want to read that rule too), although your response to it wasn't. Good luck in the future, and you can be sure that this is my last post here. Good bye. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeFella,

Now you're playing the victim card, but when you compare my posts to attempting to scrawl my opinions on my neighbor's garage, your claim of "good faith" breaks down entirely. You were indeed being condescending, and as you have admitted, were not even addressing the issues at hand anyway. Kanbei85 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

June 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Jonathan Sarfati. Your edit summary showed a refusal to assume good faith. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for editwarring befotre

You aren't entitled to a specific number of reverts and you've already suggested you will edit war. You need to stop now. It's clear you don't have a consensus. Doug Weller talk… —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is not required when there is a violation of NPOV on the bio of a living person. I have not suggested any such thing. The point is that a libelous statement about Dr. Sarfati is being propagated online. It needs to be corrected. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's libel, it was up toSarfati to sue. He didn't. You can go to WP:BLPN if you think it's a policy violation, but you need to stop reverting because it isn't obviously a violation and not a 3rr exemption. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati is covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is made clear by the discretionary sanction notice on Talk:Young Earth creationism. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Sarfati. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise

Clearly you are very passionate about creationism. That's not a bad thing, but the way you are going about is is very likely to end up with you being banned from making any edit or posting any comment on creationism here on Wikipedia.

I would like to offer you an alternative path. We have several editors who are very passionate about topics where the majority of editors strongly disagree with them, but nonetheless do some really good work. They monitor the pages that they are passionate about and make sure that every claim made is solidly based upon reliable sources. It keeps the other editors from unconsciously putting in things that violate NPOV (real violations, not your current misunderstanding of that policy) but this takes unfailing politeness, ignoring any rudeness by others and it takes real wisdom.

Think of the way Simon Peter went after Malchus with a sword in John 18:10. Now compare that with the way Jesus dealt with the Pharisees who tried to trap him in Matthew 22:15-22. Or the woman caught in adultery. Would Jesus have done better in either situation by pulling out a sword?

I wrote an essay for editors like you. It is at WP:1AM. I advise that you read it carefully and to read the links on that page.

Yes, I know that you really want to respond by saying how unfair we all are and how you should prevail because you are right. I am not going to argue with you about that. Instead I am going to tell you what will happen next if you keep doing what you are doing. You will either end up being blocked from editing Wikipedia, or you will be ordered by a Wikipedia administrator to never post to any creationism-related page or to discuss creationism on any page. At this point you will have zero effectiveness at doing what you are trying to do.

"But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere." -- James 3:17

"Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in those who take advice." -- Proverbs 13:10

"Whoever is patient has great understanding, but one who is quick-tempered displays folly." -- Proverbs 14:29

Please give careful consideration of which path you are about to choose before responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to do any "edit warring". I've made my case in a few places, but I cannot overturn the consensus of many editors, biased or not. I don't really believe I have misunderstood the NPOV policy, but what I do believe is that the WP:FRINGE policy is actually a contradiction of the WP:NPOV policy which is selectively applied to certain groups which the editors here wish to punish and suppress. I could make a great case for that, since labeling something "pseudoscience" is inherently to take part in the debate and take sides-- something the NPOV policy specifically forbids. Whether creationism is pseudoscience depends on your stance in the debate, therefore that is a non-neutral statement.

But let's have a more interesting conversation, Guy Macon. You apparently have at least some knowledge of the Bible; do you call yourself a Christian? What do you believe about creation?

Blessings, --Kanbei85 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not hearing that you have had a change of heart or a description of how you plan do do things differently. You have been warned. keep up your present behavior and there is a real possibility that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you meant to say all of that and were not clear. If so, please try again.

Second, I absolutely refuse to discuss my position on creationism with a young-earth creationist who has been disrupting Wikipedia. (This is the answer I would give if I was a creationist, evolutionist, or held any other position). Convince me that you understand what you have done wrong and explain how you will do things differently in the future and then maybe I will be willing to discuss it.

In case you are curious, I competed a four year education at a theological seminary (it doesn't matter which denomination; I choose it because it was what I could afford) with high marks and then, right before the graduation/ordination, I told them that I would be miserable as a pastor and that I had decided that I was going to spend my life as an electronics engineer. I am still active in my religion, and again, I absolutely refuse to discuss which religion I belong to with someone who has been disrupting Wikipedia. I will tell you that my personal opinions do not effect any decisions I make on religion-related pages. I have no problem at all with vigorously defending WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV even if the result is an article that completely contradicts what I believe.

I suggest that you attempt to make your case that you and you alone have discovered that our WP:FRINGE policy contradicts our WP:NPOV policy on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I don't see it, but I am willing to be convinced. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to make changes to reflect a more objective, less-biased rendering of certain articles. I attempted to convince the other editors, but predictably was unable to do so. And presently I am not continuing to attempt to edit the Jonathan Sarfati page (I believe that is what you were talking about, right?). I have not violated 3RR, and I am not presently continuing to edit that page. What are you contending I have done wrong and need to apologize to you for?--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @Guy Macon:, I followed your suggestion of bringing up the issue on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, and as a result I am being attacked with a topic ban by @Ian.thomson:.--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. You were not "attacked with a topic ban for bringing up the issue on the Fringe Theories noticeboard". You were being dishonest when you wrote that. The reality is that you were warned that you will be topic banned if you keep edit warring. See WP:IDHT. I am unwatching this page and I do not wish to interact with you any further. Please do not ping me. Now your fate is in the hands of the Wikipedia administrators (I am an ordinary editor and cannot block anyone). EdJohnston is one of our best admins, I trust him to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're referring to! I have not continued edit warring, and the statement was placed on the Fringe theories noticeboard post I just created by @Ian.thomson:. @EdJohnston: --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back long enough to say, my mistake. I thought you were talking about the warning below. I just saw the post an the FTN. I also trust Ian thomson to do the right thing. Sorry for coming back after saying I was leaving, but I had to correct my error and apologize. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: that does not answer the question of why @Ian.thomson: would be pursuing a topic ban in the first place. As you can see I followed your advice, so feel free to check out the post on the noticeboard. You might also mentioned to Ian.thomson that it was your idea I create that post in the first place.--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Guy Macon:, it's a total ban, just for raising the issue in accordance with your suggestion. If that doesn't demonstrate to you the level of bias and censorship going on here at Wikipedia, nothing will. Cheers.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it would have been possible for a user without a history of edit warring to peddle pseudoscience to point out non-self-serving concerns with WP:FRINGE with an openness for clarification and not receive the least bit of trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had I needed to search your contributions history for some other reason before you posted at FTN, I still would have blocked you. The post at FTN is just what made me aware of you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Jonathan Sarfati

Though it is good that you started an RfC you are continuing to edit war about the POV tag on the article. Be aware that the next time you re-add the tag an administrator could choose to block you for edit warring. The adition of the tag has no support on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be adding it back. I have made my case, that's all that can be done.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to file a request for discretionary sanctions for you to be topic banned, but since all of your edits consist of stuff like...

Laundry list

8 June 2018 - Screed basically arguing WP:FRINGE is a violation of WP:NPOV because there is no such thing as pseudoscience, just unpopular science.
8 June 2018 - "Reliable sources" is a loaded term. What one considers reliable is dependent on your worldview. You dismiss all creationist sources out of hand because you're biased.
8 June 2018 - Wikipedia is an echo chamber of anti-creationist bigotry
6 June 2018 - The illusion that there is a great weight of evidence supporting Darwinism comes mainly from bullying tactics and bluster.
6 June 2018 - I do not find it obvious at all that creationism has no good reasons on its side, and in fact I cannot imagine any other reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
5 June 2018 - Just another self-reinforcing mechanism to stack the deck against any challenges to the mainstream consensus, especially if they happen to come from a 'taboo' individual. This is the modern-day iron curtain in full display.
4 June 2018 - Your definition of 'credible scientists' would just be those who also promote the majority consensus view of Darwinism. Wikipedia is guilty of suppressing freedom of speech and thought, and suppressing the advancement of true science.
4 June 2018 - Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Truth is not decided by consensus-- any true scientist will tell you that.
10 January 2016 - Further arguing that Wikipedia is censoring the "truth" about evolution and creationism, in response to an WP:3RRNB report.
10 January 2016 - Using the term pseudoscience, for one thing, is an automatic violation of NPOV, because it makes the decision for the reader as to whether creation science is legitimate.
9 January 2016 - This article is full of blatant bias and represents anything but a neutral perspective. Citing various atheist and anti-creationist sources abundantly, as well as actually referring to Creation Science with the perjorative "pseudoscience".
9 January 2016 - Censoring mainstream science's assessment of Creationism.

...It will be obvious to any other admin that your continued presence is a net negative to the site. For your work in our science-related articles to just be useless would be an improvement given your apparent inability to grasp even the existence of an academic mainstream, much less that there is a scientific mainstream (or that it would rely on the scientific method instead of popularity of opinions, as your posts indicate you firmly believe). The few edits you've made outside of science-related articles include further denial of science and this borderline preachy violation of WP:GEVAL. This is the one edit you've made that wasn't completely opposed to this site's mission to summarize mainstream academic sources.

The only possible way you might be able to appeal this block is to admit that you (not other people) have violated our site's policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:AGF, WP:FRINGE, and agree to a topic ban from all topics relating to pseudoscience and the Bible (which any admin would recognize as distinct concepts). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're blocking me for ideological reasons.@Guy Macon:--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking you because not only do you not understand what science or mainstream academia are as concepts, you refuse to acknowledge that you are ignorant of those topics and insist on treating your misinformed delusions as the only possible divinely objective truth. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That clarification is, ironically, full of subjective and ideology-infused statements, as well as personal attacks against me.--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you simply incapable of even considering the theoretical possibility that you might have made a mistake, or is it a willful choice? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I may have made mistakes. But that is not why you're blocking me. On the Fringe Theories noticeboard, you stated that you were going to pursue a topic ban but then you had to go look for evidence to support it, and then you decided on a total ban. That's an admission that you decided to ban me before you actually had evidence to support it. What actually happened is that you saw my post and got angry and decided to try to block me to prevent me from making any further comments you disagreed with. I do not deny the existence of an academic mainstream, but that is not in question here. Try reading my post at the noticeboard.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the post you made at FTN was justification enough for a topic ban. Looking for further evidence to ensure it was what showed that, except for one edit, you have been on a Jihad against labeling scientifically disproven concepts as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbei, I'm a completely uninvolved editor. But I wanted to step in and offer an outside view of what's going on here.

First, WP:FRINGE is not a violation of WP:NPOV. You seem to be under the impression that NPOV means "all sides get equal time." Which is just not how it works. NPOV has always been about the mainstream scientific understanding of a subject. WP:FRINGE is a refinement of that to specify that tiny minority groups do not get undue representation in articles about a subject. The Wikipedia community has upheld this *repeatedly* over the many years these policies have existed. Trying to argue that this is a contradiction will not get you anywhere.

Your block is *because* of your repeated attempts to argue for fringe minority viewpoints, and attempts to repeatedly argue against community consensus. If you were going to argue against WP:FRINGE, trying to wikilawyer that it's a violation of NPOV won't go anywhere. People before you have tried, and overwhelmingly the consensus at the Village Pump and Admin Noticeboards has been that FRINGE is compliant with NPOV.

The best thing you can do now is to accept that your previous arguments weren't sound and state that you'll abide by the rules in your next unblock request. Your current request will likely be denied for not addressing these problems.

If you wish to speak against WP:FRINGE in the future, the Village Pump is the place to make your argument. However, you're unlikely to prevail given the history of support that policy has enjoyed.

I hope this helps. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Groveling at the feet of the gods of consensus here on WP and saying 'Caesar is Lord' (in effect) is not on my agenda. I did not use unsound arguments, and the points I raised are valid and worth considering. If I violated policy, it was only the the discriminatory section of WP:FRINGE which I contend is a contradiction of WP:NPOV in the first place. Banning me is not a demonstration that my arguments were unsound.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding to someone who is trying to help you in a rather defiant manner, which gives us less reason to believe that you're going to be a positive addition to the community. Further indication that you will never try to engage the community on its own terms will result in loss of your talk page access (because at this point, we're only granting you the privilege, not the "right", for the purpose of understanding and appealing your block). See also:

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Kanbei85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Being blocked for ideological reasons. Not violating policy, but actually attempting to correct violations of NPOV. --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly you are WP:NOTHERE and have demonstrated you are unwilling to conduct yourself in a manner in keeping with this collaborative project. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

And if you cannot get that the above is not a valid reason then you are just going to lose access to your talk page as well the way you are going.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone

What part of "don't ping me" are you having trouble understanding? I have unwatched your talk page and I don't want to have anything to do with you. Ping me again and I will ask that your talk page access be revoked. (Yes I know that I can block pings in my preferences, but you are really starting to piss me off and I would just as soon have you not be able to ping anyone if you are so defiant that you refuse to abide by such a reasonable request). Leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]