User talk:GusChiggins21

In most jurisdictions

I noticed that you added the words "in most jurisdictions" to some passages regarding the legality of advantage gambling and hole carding. Are these techniques illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in others? No citation was included for the changes, so I was curious what they were based on. They seem like vague additions, but if you have more specific information with a reliable source, this might be valuable information to include in both articles. Rray (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know counting and hole-carding are illegal in some places in Europe. Monte Carlo for one, I think. You can get hassled for it in the Bahamas and some places in the Caribbean. GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some specific information about that with some sources, and maybe we can make the article clearer regarding that point. I've read about people getting some serious flack in the Bahamas and the Caribbean, although it wasn't clear whether or not it had anything to do with the legality of it. Welcome back to Wikipedia, btw. Rray (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duane Gish

I know that you're trying to take the dispute through proper channels with the Rfc. But it's important in an RFC not to argue with editors in the RFC section, especially so when you're the editor requesting the RFC. The RFC isn't a debate or argument, it's a request for input. Sometimes a question for clarification purposes (which is welcome there) can sound like an argument (which is not), so please try to be open to views expressed there and careful with how questions are posed to those that give them in an RFC. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused

When you first started editing on the ID articles, you reacted very angrily whenever anyone referred to you as a creationist. When I look over material on past discussions on your talk page, I see you making statements like There are at least a dozen people (and probably a legion of sockpuppets that can be summoned), supported by like-minded admins, who believe that wikipedia's purpose is to prove the theory of evolution is the only reasonable thing anyone could believe. It's not; no rational person could look at the fossil record and support evolution by natural selection, or look at the fairy-tale explanations for the origin of life and consider them to hold any weight. This seems to contradict your stance that you aren't a creationist.Kww (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look carefully. It's "evolution by natural selection" I have a problem with. Evolution guided by God isn't the same. The Bible seems to allow that there has been some evolution within forms or kinds, as in "god created them according to their kinds". If you believe in a worldwide flood, you have to concede that significant evolution has occurred since Noah got off the ark, because there's no way everything could have fit.

The problem I have with the theory of evolution by natural selection is that natural selection isn't as powerful as a mechanism as it is alleged to be, and there's no explanation for things like the Cambrian explosion, which was clearly the result of creation. I never said I didn't believe in creation, I just said I support evolution, because someone (filll maybe?) was saying I was a young-earth fundie whacko that was engaging in "religious recruiting". I was just trying to find some common ground with the guy, and let him know I'm not some bible-thumper weirdo that wants wikipedia to include flood geology criticisms in mainstream articles, which is what I thought he meant when he said "creationist".

Can I ask you an honest question? Why are the editors of ID articles so hostile to anyone that edits from a different point of view than them? Do you guys assume that everyone is a bible thumper trying to ruin things? Does that happen a lot? GusChiggins21 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One would venture to guess it is not the editor, but their chosen method of editing and the manner in which they source their information. It also has a lot to do with the how many ID proponents are completely unwilling to accept being a part of creationism, even though it is quite clear they are members of the same family. Just a bit more evolved, so to speak. Or it could have something to do with how many ID/creationist editors steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any sort of criticism or flaws regarding their beliefs about "flawed" evolution, yet jump at the slightest imperfection in evolutionary theory and quote mine in order to, in their minds, uphold what a flawed theory it is. Baegis (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that different points of view have little to no place in science articles in an encyclopedia. For science articles, the scientific point of view and the neutral point of view are essentially one and the same. That extends, more or less, to articles about people like Behe, where discussions of their reception among Christians and conservatives are legitimate, but those discussions can't be done in a way to legitimize their point of view. What you seem to see as being an advocate for a neglected side is seen by most other editors as just one more effort to undermine the scientific foundations of the article by inserting creationism. The encyclopedia is not the place to start. If ID ever finds anything to support itself scientifically, it will become a part of mainstream science. If that happens, Wikipedia will represent that. Until that day, it is treated as we are required to treat pseudoscience ... we document that it is widely considered to be unscientific and absurd.Kww (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The partyline for intelligent design, for legal reasons to basically try to circumvent US law, the constitution of the United States and rulings of the US Supreme Court, is to claim that intelligent design is not creationism. Also, we get hordes of intelligent design supporters and creationists here who all claim to be atheists or evolutionists or claim they are not creationists and do not believe in intelligent design. Nevertheless, they almost always, almost 100% of the time, turn out to be exactly the opposite of what they claim.

But the bottom line in Wikipedia is that we are not allowed to promote large amounts of WP:FRINGE material and give it WP:UNDUE influence. For example, in discussions of Jesus, most of the articles assume he was a real person and miracles were performed etc. The WP:FRINGE views that he never existed, or that he was really educated in India under Hindu mystics, or is a confusion with some other legendary religious figure, or that he was really Satan, or a mythical figure etc are not really very prominent in the Jesus article or most of the subsiduary daughter articles.

How far do you think someone would get, or should get, if they wanted to rewrite Jesus as if Jesus never existed and Christianity was a complete fraud? Such views exist, but they are WP:FRINGE views. By your reasoning, someone could demand that all articles on Jesus must state prominently that all the stories about Jesus are myths and all the other information in the article is complete nonsense. How useful would that be for the readers?

You see, we go with the mainstream views of the relevant communities on each subject. We make those the most prominent, and we do not focus our attention on marginal views. --Filll (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of "mainstream". Who is mainstream? Scientists? Creation scientists? Theologians? Christians? Atheists? What exactly is constituted by the scientific method? The problem with the ID, evolution, and creationism projects is axioms and presuppositions. What is science? What is verifiable? What is a reliable source? What is bias? What is a scientific theory, and what's a religious theory? This goes way beyond evolution, to all of those questions.

Honestly, I don't think there are any editors on the project that even hold any mainstream views. Maybe I'm wrong... Does anyone on this project support theistic evolution? Does anyone believe that science can integrate belief in miracles if it's supported on empirical grounds, or do they ignore all miracle claims a priori? Does anyone even believe in God, or is anyone involved in any mainstream religion? GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying that evolution is complete nonsense and saying that it has flaws. Unfortunately, some of the more radical ID believers that edit on here give us a reputation as Bible thumpers that don't use scientific arguments. I have never used the Bible as an argument in a scientific debate, just ask any editor I've argued with. I believe that the Bible is truth, but I know that because others do not believe this and because many passages are open to interpretation the Bible is not a good source on wikipedia unless it is a Bible or Christianity article. Saksjn (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers to some questions

You have posed a lot of questions. Let me try to educate you a little. I admit it is confusing at first, and I can remember being confused myself when I was first here.

The problem is the definition of "mainstream". Who is mainstream? That would depend on the article and the subject. In an article about Jesus, it is the theologians and scholars in Christianity and Islam, for the most part. Secondarily, it is the congregants in those faiths, and in particular those in the largest sects. For example, the LDS/Mormon view is more of a WP:FRINGE view. The atheist view is more of a WP:FRINGE view.

Scientists? On articles in science, the scientific view is dominant or mainstream by several different measures.

Creation scientists? Since creation science purports to be a science, not a religion or something else, the mainstream view is that of the mainstream scientists.

Theologians? On theological topics, in most cases they are the mainstream, but not in dentristry articles or plumbing articles or science articles.

Christians? The Christian view of Buddhism is probably not the relevant mainstream view. The Christian view of Christian articles is closer to the mainstream.

Atheists? The Atheist view is probably close to mainstream on atheist topics. The Muslim view of atheism is probably less mainstream.

What exactly is constituted by the scientific method? This is a complicated question, but it is the method that most scientists use, and mainly has to do with data and parsimonious temporary explanations for the data that allow predictions to be made. Much more complicated definitions come from philosophers of science, but scientists ignore them for the most part. US courts have also ruled on this repeatedly.

The problem with the ID, evolution, and creationism projects is axioms and presuppositions. Yes there are assumptions. One of the assumptions of science and evolution is that science uses natural means to explain natural phenomena. One of the assumptions of intelligent design and creationism is that magic and/or the supernatural can be used as an explanation of natural phenomena.

What is science? Science is both the process called the scientific method, and the information that is gleaned using the scientific method.

What is verifiable? Verifiable sources are sources that readers can check for themselves. A more complicated definition is at WP:V.

What is a reliable source? There is a big long discussion at WP:RS. However, the best sources are peer-reviewed journal articles in mainstream academic journals. The New York Times can be a reliable source on some things. And so on. This is a complicated question, and some WP:SPS even can be WP:RS sometimes.

What is bias? Well in the case of statistics, it is when the difference between the expected value of a statistic and the true value. In terms of WP, it is a departure from WP:NPOV. NPOV is the view presented in WP, and it consists of the mainstream view in that area, balanced by the nonmainstream views in proportion to their prominence.

What is a scientific theory, and what's a religious theory? Typically a scientific theory is an explanation of data produced using the scientific method, and a temporary explanation that is used to make predictions. If the predictions fail, eventually the theory is replaced with another that makes better predictions. Scientific theories do not allow nonnatural explanations for natural observations. A religious idea (not theory really) usually does not change, since it is dogmatic, and usually does not make good predictions. It usually is never replaced with another that makes better predictions even if the predictions fail. A religious idea usually allow nonnatural explanations for natural observations. This is a huge area and a bit is discussed at demarcation problem.

Honestly, I don't think there are any editors on the project that even hold any mainstream views.

Of course there are. Lots. Most of the veterans do.

Maybe I'm wrong... Does anyone on this project support theistic evolution? Theistic evolution is only a mainstream view in religious articles. I and several others working on these articles subscribe to theistic evolution, which is the mainstream view among the US public and maybe among all Christians (but not the public in other Western industrial countries, or even most English speaking countries). However, our views on theistic evolution are irrelevant to writing these articles, since we have to follow NPOV. Atheists and Buddhists and Hindus and Young Earth Creationists etc can all work on the theistic evolution article, even though they do not fall in that category, as long as they follow NPOV.

Does anyone believe that science can integrate belief in miracles if it's supported on empirical grounds, or do they ignore all miracle claims a priori?

Of course some do, but on science articles, miracles are not part of science, and so the articles are not written from that perspective, but from the perspective of mainstream science by NPOV. On articles about miracles and Christianity etc, those who believe in miracles are the mainstream of course and those articles are written accordingly.

Does anyone even believe in God, or is anyone involved in any mainstream religion? Of course lots do, and are. However, that is irrelevant on science articles since we use NPOV. Go to Christianity and Jesus and God to see articles written from the perspective of belief in God, or involvement in mainstream religion (although mainstream in religion is a complicated thing, given that there are 1.5 billion Muslims and 1 billion Catholics and 800 million Hindus and 500 million Buddhists in the world. By that measure, the 20 or 30 million biblical literalists in the United States are basically pretty minor, no matter how much they scream and so on).--Filll (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, it sounds to me like you're saying that one of the presuppositions on the ID project is that since scientists are in agreement about evolution and intelligent design, that that view should predominate. Is that right? It also sounds like another presupposition is that the views of experts should predominate, because they are experts. Is that right? GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ID purports to be science, so the views of scientists in the related fields should be given in proportion - so proponents are a fringe group! But then again, courts have found ID to 'not be science', therefore the ideas of it's proponents should dominate the article! (Hmmm.... confusing). ^rossnixon 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all that confusing – to the extent that ID purports to be science, it's described in the context of majority opinion in the scientific community and the courts. To the extent that it's theology, it's described in the context of majority expert opinion amongst historians and experts on theology. The views of its proponents are shown, without giving them undue weight. The presupposition on all articles is that care is taken with self-published and primary source material, and opinions and analysis should come from published expert opinion – see WP:NOR and WP:V. Hope that helps, .. dave souza, talk 08:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (again)

I see you're again disruptively editing our ID-related articles, despite my previous warning. I've blocked you for another week. Raul654 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are way out of line. I hope this goes to arbcom. I also hope someone who is the subject of libel in that article sues you and the other users that wrote and perpetuate that article. You can't use your admin tools in a courtroom. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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).

GusChiggins21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am being blocked for adding 3 fact tags to an article. This has got to be the most ridiculous block I've ever seen.

Decline reason:

I've not examined the block, but the thinly veiled legal threats above prevent your unblock while they are outstanding. — Sandstein (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (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.

It wasn't a legal threat. It was saying that I hope someone who is being libeled in the article sues the editors, so they'll learn that real life isn't like wikipedia, where you can say and do whatever you want. Since I'm not a party to being libeled in the article, I wouldn't have standing to sue, and thus I am incapable of making any legal threat. Even furthermore, this is a violation of BLP guidelines, which require the removal (not even fact-tagging) of material that could draw a lawsuit. Your refusal to unblock is without merit, and you're setting the precedent that people who protest against libelous material about living people will be blocked. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning libel in the way you are doing, is reason enough to be banned permanently. Do you understand that?--Filll (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so now I can be banned for asking people to follow policies? And for trying to protect your silly asses from a libel suit? Do you realize what would happen if one of the people being libeled got pissed off? Wikipedia has a massive lawsuit, being pushed by the Discovery Institute, or the Moral Majority or some similar fundy group. And anyone who added, or reverted libelous material becomes a party to that. Even if the case is frivolous (which it won't be), it's going to costs tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend everyone's actions.

In the real world, you can't just call someone a creationist, or claim their ideas have been thoroughly "debunked", or that all scientists believe them to be a practitioner of pseudoscience, and not expect to get nailed. You're attacking someone's professional credibility, without any cause, and that's libel. That's why we have BLP rules, to protect wikipedia, and wikipedia users from getting sued. Why don't you guys go ask Jimbo what he thinks of impugning people's professional credibility and banning a user for asking you to at least provide some kind of citation? GusChiggins21 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you have found some real issue like this, then follow the procedures at WP:BLP.--Filll (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for citations, and got banned. That's it, I added 3 fact tags to ridiculous, libelous, unsourced statements that are attacking someone's professional credibility, and I get banned. Neither the editor, nor the admin that banned me can defend their position on the talk page, because (as usually happens when I discuss things with editors of ID pages) their position was wrong and utterly indefensable. They're unable to come up with any reason for their actions, so they bring in a beauracrat to ban anyone that disagrees with them. Does that make any sense to you? GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Has it ever dawned on you that, just maybe, it's an outside shot that you are wrong? Considering your lengthy block log in combination with your short existence on the project, ranting about your own infallibility in regards to ID is disingenuous at best. But please take this to WP:BLP so it can be shot down and you can find another axe to grind with the whole lot of ID articles and the cohort of editors who manage to keep them as neutral as possible, considering that they are constantly attacked by your kind over and again. Baegis (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, taking it up with BLP would be a good idea... IF I WASN'T BANNED! And I'll go ahead and lump you in with the editors who are incapable of defending their ideas with logical reasoning, and instead resort to personal attacks (bad ones at that), and calling their lackeys in to ban anyone who disagrees with them. The whole project is full of logical fallacies, libel, unsourced attacks on people's professional credibility, and downright piss poor writing. Oh well, back to the real world, where we don't allow the viewpoint of less than 10% of the population to be preached as truth, and call it an "encyclopedia". GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Gus. You should not have been blocked in my opinion, but your not helping your self by arguing this way. Let me know what article they blocked you over and I'll see if I can do anything. They say Christians are dogmatic, but sometimes they should examine there own actions. Saksjn (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recursive incivility

Indeed, a statement like this is plainly uncivil and disruptive, especially absent clear and incontrovertible evidence. See WP:ICA. Don't do it again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, lying is uncivil and disruptive, and that editor has been caught doing it multiple times. Asking someone to stop engaging in disruptive behavior is not uncivil. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing others of incivility is plainly unproductive, in the sense of leading to good results.

Telling someone that they're "lying" has a terrible track record, as far as constructive results. Telling people "don't do it again" has a terrible track record, as far as constructive results. Who among us comes from a world where issuing orders to other people generally works? Is that really how one gets things done, in a collaborative environment?

I've interacted a bit with Filll, and GusChiggins21, I can assure you that his intent is not to lie about you. Rather than confronting him over what you see as a lie, why not ask him how he came to hold those misapprehensions (identifying and refuting them plainly), and gently disabuse him of whatever notions turn out to be false? I've found that more people are overconfident in their own mind-reading abilities than are actual liars. Filll is much more likely to be jumping to conclusions than to be lying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for telling GusChiggins21 "don't do it again." Gus, carry on as you were. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate anyone who is willing to help with the problems that exist on the intelligent design project, because it needs help. Normally, I'm willing to assume good faith. But it's happened so much with Filll(I believe 5 times now) that it's pretty much obvious to me that this guy is a liar. The best way to deal with liars is to nail them every time they lie, and make it clear that the behavior won't be tolerated. Not being mean, or responding in kind, but making it clear that you know they are being dishonest, and you won't tolerate it. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I might have agreed with you about Filll, indeed, I would have been tempted to... before last night. We were both involved in a "skypecast" from Wikipedia:Not The Wikipedia Weekly, and we ended up talking for a while afterwards. It had seemed very compelling to me that he had been intentionally misrepresenting my position here on Wikipedia, because it had happened so many times. Then it turned out, I was wrong. We had actually separated by a wide gulf of misunderstanding.

That's the trouble with deciding that someone's a liar, and that they need to be "nailed" every time they lie. What if you're wrong, and what if it's actually miscommunication? A miscommunication can be monstrous in proportion, and quite difficult to detect, especially in a text-based environment. In Filll's case, the man will jump rashly to a conclusion, and then will speak and act based on that conclusion, but I don't think he'll intentionally lie. It was talking to him off-wiki that made me realize that.

I think the best way to deal with what appears to be deliberate misrepresentation is to remain silent on whether or not you think it's deliberate, while calmly exposing the truth of the matter for anyone who is listening. If you continue to insist that the conversation stay on-topic (i.e., not personal), and if you bring in outside observers, via WP:3O or WP:RFC, then you'll defeat the "lie" without ever saying "liar".

The short version is, none of us can truly tell the difference between dishonesty and difference of perspective. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because we're talking about content here, and not about each others motivations. If you stay focused on content, it won't matter if someone is lying or not; neutral presentation of reliably sourced content will prevail, in the long run, and given enough eyes. That's what I've observed, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You should retire as an editor

While you may see it as merely objecting to "soapboxing" against those you claim are pushing an "anti ID POV," your policy of pushing an anti mainstream science POV is extremely disruptive to wikipedia. It calls into question your understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I note that you also work to undermine the collaborative nature of the project by enabling POV pushers with special pleadings to ignore the "in the presence of evidence to the contrary" clause of the Assume Good Faith policy. In reality, you are pushing a POV, moreso than those you accuse. Your consistent abuse of fellow editors, in spite of constant reminders to stop, are in violation of numerous policies, leads me to believe you are unfit to continue here. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clever, but pretty much nothing you're saying is true. I've never tried to push any point of view. I challenge you to find a single edit I've made that was attempting to promote ID, creationism, Christianity, or any point of view above other points of view, rather than pushing merely for neutrality. Of course, I expect you to fail, because I am totally right, but I'll let you try! GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It took me all of 30 nanoseconds to find this. My work is done here, but do enjoy the ID POV-pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? That's a talk page! I said edits, not talk page comments. You're a POV pusher or not based on edits, not based on your talk page comments! And I wasn't even talking to you, are you and Odd Nature... related? Or do you just happen to have my talk page on your watchlist? GusChiggins21 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you put some blatantly false material on a talk page as a challenge to other editors, does not mean it is not disruptive. When you misrepresent the material in reliable sources, and then repeat this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and become combative and argumentative about it after your fallacies have been revealed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you play a game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, eventually people get (1) bored (2) annoyed (3) irritated (4) disgusted (5) angry and so on, and might (a) quit the article or the subject or Wikipedia or (b) have an unCIVIL outburst, so it appears that you are WP:BAITing them, and therefore WP:GAMEing the system. Do you understand how that might be viewed as disruptive? And even if you do not want to admit it is disruptive, an overwhelming majority of other editors view it as disruptive, and guess what we do on Wikipedia? We follow WP:CON. This is something you do not seem able or willing to do. And so you are blocked. Get it?--Filll (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I did was disruptive:

1. I haven't misrepresented a single source, and I challenge you to find a single example of that. If you do, I'll mail you $20. Not kidding about that; find one example, and I'll mail you a twenty.

2. On the contrary, you and other editors constantly violate BLP by claiming that scientists are "discredited" or "considered "pseudoscientitsts" etc. by synthesizing, in violation of NOR. Raul thinks it's appropriate to ban users for adding a single fucking fact tag to ridiculous statements like "the whole scientific community thinks so and so is a pseudoscientist" when there's clearly no possibility of there even being a reliable source for something like that.

3. No is "gaming" the system. It seems to me that you and other pro atheism POV warriors want to use every article about evolution, intelligent design, creationism, or even documentaries about creationism as a soapbox to rant about the supposed idiocy of anyone who disagrees with you.

4. There were multiple editors on the expelled page saying the exact same thing I was saying, and you seem to conveniently ignore them, or misrepresent what they were saying, to make it appear as if they are trying to change NPOV policy or something equally ridiculous.

5. Furthermore, why should I even listen to you? I've caught you lying about me several times, and misrepresenting what other editors were saying in content disputes, in an attempt to gain an upper hand. Do you even dispute that you have lied about me several times? GusChiggins21 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (4th time)

Since you didn't get the message, and continue to revert war on creationism/evolution related articles, request specious fact tags, edit tenditiously on their talk pages, and make personal attacks, I have blocked you (again) for a month. And the next time, it will be indefinite. Raul654 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is not a policy, I did not revert war anything I was merely following BLP policy which you seem unable to understand, and did not make a single personal attack. This ban, like the others, is baseless, and we'll be heading to arbcom over it if it doesn't get lifted. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

GusChiggins21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As you see above, I have refuted every reason Raul gave for the block. Tendentious editing is not a policy, and it certainly doesn't apply to talk pages. I made no personal attacks of any kind, and I never engaged in a "revert war". He's referring to a case where I added a fact tag to a statement calling someone a "pseudoscientist" which wasn't sourced, and he's banned me for following BLP policy before.

Decline reason:

So are you arguing that since tendentious editing is not policy it is ok? I would call a great majority of you recent edits disruption. See the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and finally in response to your block 7. — KnightLago (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (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.

Not only is Raul wrong, he has friends that are wrong! Refusing to unblock me, while acknowledging that I never broke any policies. Boy, that makes sense. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See disruption. KnightLago (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And the examples you cited didn't include a single instance of that. The closest thing you might have is where I told Filll to stop lying, but that's not a personal attack, because he was in fact lying, and doesn't even deny it. In fact, I've caught him lying about me on my talk page at least 5 times, and he doesn't deny those either. Is it uncivil to protect yourself, or other editors, when someone is lying in order to gain leverage in a content dispute? It looks to me like you're supporting Raul's use of admin tools to solve content disputes? Because, clearly no policies were broken. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do deny that I lied. But it is not productive to get involved in some arguments.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the first I've ever heard of it. I was under the impression that you, and the admins here, thought it was just okay to lie about other users. What do you have to say for yourself? GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)