User talk:Justdad78

Madeline (part of me) 19:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

Hi Justdad78! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article on the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine contains multiple violations of Wikipedia policy on neutrality and bias. The statement that the society is not a recognized scientific organization is not supported by anything other than references to a number of news articles. When you look at those articles you will see that they either refer to the SEGM only very briefly or repeat that claim that it is not recognized without any supporting authority. Justdad78 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which, even if it were completely and utterly true, would entitle you to violate Wikipedia's behavioral policies concerning

exceptions

to its "rules" on revert-warring, but your reverts do not fall within any of those.

Believing something very strongly to be true, and therefore editing to enact that in article space, is an example of what Wikipedia editors call

WP:RGW behaviour. And RGW is not really accepted as an explanation for causing disruption, whether in Article space or in Talk space. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (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).

Justdad78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have used the Undo function only once and at the same time engaged in a discussion on the Talk page for the article. I note that other users have summarily reversed changes I made for stated reasons without offering their own explanation.

Decline reason:

Per below. However, neither we nor you can completely "deactivate" your account ... for legal and technical reasons a record of the edits you made needs to be kept. We can, however, rename it and go to great lengths to make it hard to find any record of it ... if you'd like to exercise that option

go here. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2022 (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.

It looks like you decided to dive into some controversial topic in the American culture wars to align it with your personal views. If you agreed to move on to some other topic to learn how Wikipedia operates, that would probably help get you unblocked. People think I'm joking when I say stuff like this, but I really think that culture warriors should be shuffled off to edit articles about the culture wars in a completely different culture. You probably couldn't care less about Brexit, geopolitical disputes in Balkans, The Troubles, or India–Pakistan relations, right? So, I wouldn't have a problem with unblocking you to edit encyclopedia articles about those topics. You'd probably bring balance to those articles because you have no emotional connection to them. Yes, all of you culture warriors would be bored stupid if you were forced to edit articles you don't have an emotional connection to, but the encyclopedia would benefit from having dispassionate edits on these controversial edits. And this is what a Wikipedian should strive for – for improving Wikipedia, not for saving the world from your cultural enemies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to be applying your policies very consistently in this area. What I saw was a hostile opinion piece which was supported largely by citations to opinion pieces in partisan publications. I attempted to introduce some degree of balance by describing what SEGM actually does and its members believe. I am not affiliated with SEGM and do not know any of its members personally although we connect on social media. I don't think it is worthwhile to pursue this issue any further so I will deactivate my account.