User talk:Go Into The Light
Admin report
I have started a report on your account activities at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Go_Into_The_Light. jps (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Go Into The Light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I confess to being pretty surprised by this block, because up until it happened, it seemed rather obvious the only people supporting it, were people with their own selfish reasons for seeing me removed from Wikipedia. It is no surprise that Chris Troutman, Guy Macon, jps, and PaleoNeonate don't like me, you only have to read the AfD debate to see I was irritating and embarrassing them with my superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Although in PaleoNeonate's case, he appears to have only been irritated as a result of a direct interaction after I turned out not to be the religious nut-job he had quite wrongly assumed I was (c.f. his comments at the Afd about "apologists" to see his obvious bias).
It is fair to say (and they are welcome to come here and dispute it if they think they can, but I suspect they won't) that they didn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart when they proposed and supported my expulsion. So it surprises me to see there is at least one person, RickInBaltimore, who you would hope was a neutral party, who agrees. Perhaps they were simply taken in by the crocodile tears, who can say.
I will say this though, I certainly do seem to have confused a lot of Wikipedia editors, given the wild accusations and general insinuations that have been thrown my way. Religious advocacy indeed. What utter nonsense. It actually genuinely surprises me that that person has somehow persuaded an Administrator to act on their entirely self-generated beliefs, ironically. I'm quite sure most of them didn't even bother to read my posts before making their assumptions, or least not very well. Quite why they can't conceive of a world where someone who is 100% against religion and thinks ID proponents especially are quite mad, could also believe this man definitely passed the Wikipedia academic notability test for his work pre-conversion, is beyond me. And if I am wrong, who was I hurting? Or rather what was I derailing/disrupting? That was the precise venue where that matter is supposedly decided.
As far as I can tell, and no detailed explanation has been forthcoming so forgive me if I am barking up the wrong tree, the problem with my editing is my verbosity and tendency to repetition. Rest assured, these are easily fixed, and didn't need the relatively harsh measure of a permanent expulsion to persuade me they needed remedying. I don't see anything else I could have done that would have caused a problem. I have denied I have a conflict of interest, and that really should suffice, absent any real evidence to the contrary.
I certainly didn't come here to use Wikipedia as a social network. My intentions are clearly positive (to stop you wrongly deleting a biography of a notable scientist) and if I have actually disrupted anything as regards the smooth operation of Wikipedia, this is the first I've heard of it from the Administration, which seems a tad unfair. I don't think I've been particularly aggressive or uncollaborative given what I have had to put up with, such as unsubstantiated accusations of a conflict of interest from the very outset. Indeed, I have been surprised at how even obvious trolling and other toxic behaviours have been tolerated when directed at me. I didn't complain, didn't ask for those users to be blocked, and so perhaps that was my error.
I certainly haven't been dishonest. I have aimed to be civil, and I don't think there is anything about me that is fundamentally misaligned with the purpose of Wikipedia. I have been here barely a week, so it would be harsh to judge my long term agenda as being inconsistent with Wikipedia. I certainly don't have a history of ignored warnings that might demonstrate my incompatible values.
Overall, after thoroughly reading that page and looking back over my interactions here, I confess to being pretty surprised. So I have to assume this block is just an error, hopefully easily remedied. If not, I would appreciate some more specific guidance as to what the specific issue actually is. Or rather was, since there does seem to be a rather final element to the manner of this block's execution, despite the claimed possibility of appeal. Go Into The Light (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request is mostly WP:NOTTHEM. I don't care what other people did, I care what you did. You were being disruptive, you seem to be here for the sole purpose of defending Günter Bechly's article, and there are concerns about conflict of interest. I suggest you deal with those issues if you'd like to get unblocked. Also, claiming that you, after a single week of editing, have more understanding of policy than a multi-year veteran of the project does not fill me with confidence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:16, 4 August 2020 (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.
My superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy
this is funny, but I'm really here to say that I don't have anything personal against you and that indefinite blocks are not permanent expulsions. I doubt that the current unblock request will convince an administrator because it keeps accusing others instead of addressing your own block or behavior directly. I can accept that hellfire was a joke too and it's nothing serious. My other comments on that ANI thread were however more important, about the AFD process etiquette and the reasons why a conflict of interest is easily assumed by anyone. Since the reason for the block was that you were not considered here to build the encyclopedia, I can also provide helpful advice, but it'll be my last message here unless you're unblocked (if that occurs, I'll gladly offer advice whenever you need it and ask).- If your unblock request can convince an administrator that you have the intention to edit outside of that topic, you are likely to be unblocked. Lastly, all editors have their biases and I have personally lived drasticly different phases in relation to faith. The important is to manage to leave that aside when editing as well as to focus on the content, the sources, their reliability and the application of policy, rather than the editors (in this case the process was of course AFD). When necessary because this does not work, there are venues like WP:ANI to report behavioral issues. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am glad you find it amusing, but since you still seem convinced, based on absolutely nothing, that I came to Wikipedia for the purposes of religious advocacy, you will hopefully understand that I still believe your understanding of Wikipedia policy to be inferior to mine. Add to that the fact my appeal quite properly addresses all of my behaviours that might have been at issue, and mentions others only in the sense it is highly pertinent that not one of them except the potentially mistaken blocker was a disinterested party. Just because people wrongly assume a conflict of interest might exist, when they have got nothing to go on but a singular interest in a topic, an interest that has already been fully explained, then it is highly unlikely it was the reason for the block. If it was, all I can say is it was a serious mistake, one that will be rectified. There is a reason I rejected Chris Troutman's accusation with vehemence. There is a reason jps chose to mischaracterise my perfectly legitimate instruction as "snide" (simply a continuance of his inability to appreciate Wikipedia editors do have obligations, they don't just get to do what they want). And there is a reason Troutman did not do anything about it except issue his pointless warning, and jps didn't actually say it was the reason I should be blocked. There is also a reason why Troutman asked for me to be blocked, and he was nice enough to say it himself - "I am eager for that Afd to close". No doubt jps is equally desperate. Can't be much fun, being as exposed as that. Quite how removing your primary opponent from the arena through bogus charges of a conflict of interest is considered good etiquette is beyond me, but perhaps we might soon be furnished with an explanation by those who are going to ultimately be held responsible for it. Go Into The Light (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Re: "Can anyone actually identify from my comment on this Afd where I ever 'proposed an exception to PROF'":
- "It should be noted that NPROF is not only a rigid list of criteria that are either passed or not passed. It allows for exceptions based on specific fields, based on precedent/consensus."[1]
- And yes, I do find it amusing. I eagerly await the next lecture from an editor who, with his SIX WHOLE DAYS of experience and a whopping SEVENTEEN EDITS, is "irritating and embarrassing" editors who have 7 years / 44,686 edits and 14 years / 52,000 edits with his "superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy". I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is me who is laughing. Six whole days of experience? Where did you get that idea? Might this be an example of you deliberately ignoring what has been said again? You surely cannot be unaware that I have said on more than one occasion, that I have been a long time lurker, before your arrogant remarks prompted me to finally get involved. So please, tell me, how is it that after fourteen years, you still think you can get away with such obvious lies? Maybe you can, but this stuff is not exactly disputable, it all being public record. I said what I said, and you can't realistically claim not to have seen it. Or maybe you will try, at least. I have my popcorn ready, if you do. Go Into The Light (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Re: "Can anyone actually identify from my comment on this Afd where I ever 'proposed an exception to PROF'":
- I am glad you find it amusing, but since you still seem convinced, based on absolutely nothing, that I came to Wikipedia for the purposes of religious advocacy, you will hopefully understand that I still believe your understanding of Wikipedia policy to be inferior to mine. Add to that the fact my appeal quite properly addresses all of my behaviours that might have been at issue, and mentions others only in the sense it is highly pertinent that not one of them except the potentially mistaken blocker was a disinterested party. Just because people wrongly assume a conflict of interest might exist, when they have got nothing to go on but a singular interest in a topic, an interest that has already been fully explained, then it is highly unlikely it was the reason for the block. If it was, all I can say is it was a serious mistake, one that will be rectified. There is a reason I rejected Chris Troutman's accusation with vehemence. There is a reason jps chose to mischaracterise my perfectly legitimate instruction as "snide" (simply a continuance of his inability to appreciate Wikipedia editors do have obligations, they don't just get to do what they want). And there is a reason Troutman did not do anything about it except issue his pointless warning, and jps didn't actually say it was the reason I should be blocked. There is also a reason why Troutman asked for me to be blocked, and he was nice enough to say it himself - "I am eager for that Afd to close". No doubt jps is equally desperate. Can't be much fun, being as exposed as that. Quite how removing your primary opponent from the arena through bogus charges of a conflict of interest is considered good etiquette is beyond me, but perhaps we might soon be furnished with an explanation by those who are going to ultimately be held responsible for it. Go Into The Light (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there, Go Into The Light. I'm an uninvolved administrator. I haven't taken the hours it would take to read through the entire history here, but it's immediately clear that some parts of your appeal are better than others. I can say, though, that this appeal will not be successful without some changes. I'm sure you're frustrated by this process, and with that I know everyone here can empathize. Here are some thoughts:
- No one has selfish reasons for getting you off Wikipedia. The editors you named above have impeccable reputations and don't tend to be easily irritated to the point of supporting an ANI thread. I think hell has a better chance of freezing over than you convincing me that you have a better general understanding of policy than them, and arguing that
they didn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart
at the ANI discussion is really going to hurt your case, because (a) they have dedicated literally thousands of hours each to improving Wikipedia and (b) it doesn't speak well for your ability to work with our editors, which is a significant barrier to unblock. - Getting involved with the "administrative" side of Wikipedia (including AfDs) is hard and stressful and annoying, even for established Wikipedians. There are a lot of rules and many more unwritten conventions, and it's not at all well documented. For newcomers, it's nearly impossible to navigate without disrupting the entire process. For most of Wikipedia, that's OK, because it's not easy to waste so much of others' time when writing sourced prose or making copyedits of articles. But on the administrative side, disruptive activity (even unintentional disruptive activity) can really drain hours and hours of other editors' time, which with our current volunteer base we simply can't lose. That's why the trend is that there's more advice and coaching and warning given to editors in mainspace compared with new editors in administrative areas.
- I'm glad that you've identified your
"verbosity and tendency to repetition"
. That in itself can drain editor time and attention and be therefore disruptive. I haven't read enough of the history here to know if that counts as the primary reason for the block. - Regarding
"I certainly haven't been dishonest. I have aimed to be civil, and I don't think there is anything about me that is fundamentally misaligned with the purpose of Wikipedia. I have been here barely a week, so it would be harsh to judge my long term agenda as being inconsistent with Wikipedia. I certainly don't have a history of ignored warnings that might demonstrate my incompatible values."
: Wikipedia strives to be a "fair" place and certainly we don't want it to be "harsh", but that's not the #1 priority here. We certainly wish we had the resources (editor time, attention, energy, and willingness to recover from disruption) to help new editors get their footing in administrative areas over the course of months, but we just don't. In other words, good faith in itself is necessary but not sufficient to be unblocked.
- No one has selfish reasons for getting you off Wikipedia. The editors you named above have impeccable reputations and don't tend to be easily irritated to the point of supporting an ANI thread. I think hell has a better chance of freezing over than you convincing me that you have a better general understanding of policy than them, and arguing that
- As I said, Wikipedia can be a frustrating place and being blocked can be a particularly frustrating experience within that. Before your next unblock request, if any, I suggest taking the time to engage with people directly and see if you understand their perspective on why you've been blocked. Hopefully you've also looked through WP:GAB, but if not, it's absolutely essential before another unblock request. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- And I see that the unblock request has already been declined. I hope my comment is still helpful. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's the fact that you came here to write this very long comment, the first part of which defends the editors who want me blocked, but you didn't even look into this issue in enough detail to know if they were actually acting selfishly, that baffles me. If fairness is not your number one priority, perhaps it should be. Because you're frankly not going to persuade too many people that being lied about by Guy Macon, and then being told he wouldn't lie because he has fourteen years service and you're just a stupid newbie so shut up and stop your complaining, is going to be one of those unwritten conventions thet most people will react very poorly to. I am happy to wait for someone who has got the time to review my case in the detail required to come to a fair and informed decision. Or as a second best, decides that it doesn't really matter for Wikipedia if new editors are subjected to serious allegations of misconduct based on nothing, and are then lied about with impugnity by the person who requested they be blocked, because, well, that's where you'd have to fill in the reason for me, if you haven't pretty much done it already (takes too long, all that fairness malarky). So that I am absolutely sure I am reporting your side of the story accurately. Go Into The Light (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Go Into The Light (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have already addressed the alleged disruption. If I have been too verbose or repetitive, I can work on those issues. Absent any other specifics, I am afraid I cannot work on issues that are not identified as issues, and as can be seen above, I have made a good faith effort to try and understand the reason for this very poorly explained block. I am not here for the sole purpose of defending Bechly'a article, and it is grossly unfair to draw that to conclusion from just a few day's worth of edits. And the irony of that comment is that I was only blocked outright because I actually did widen my interest, whereas before a simple block from only that debate was proposed. What concerns me is that you care so little about my case that you couldn't even get a basic fact like that straight before declining the appeal on the basis of your flawed picture of events. Mere concerns about a conflict of interest are irrelevant frankly. I have every right in Wikipedia policy to participate on that topic unless or until someone is prepared to stand up and say "Yes, I am convinced he has a conflict of interest, here is my proof, and I stand by it. I will take full responsibility if I am later shown to have been in error and that my decision was not just wrong, it was not even within the reasonable bounds of discretion." You have not done so, and deliberately so, it seems. I have lurked around Wikipedia enough to know for a fact that it is totally and completely out of the ordinary to ban someone outright simply for having shown a singular interest in an Afd on the mere assumption that indicates they have a conflict of interest. It does not fill me with confidence that I can so easily identify when an Administrator is being unfair and frankly sloppy. I stand by my assesment of my policy knowledge. If I have been wrong in any specific case where I have claimed superior knowledge, up and including this appeal, then please provide details. Go Into The Light (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
An unblock request is not the right vehicle to ask for specifics. Neither you nor anyone else has a "right" to participate in an AfD or, for that matter, any other part of Wikipedia. This unblock request does not sufficiently (or even minimally) address the disruptive activity here and continues to accuse others of car[ing] so little about my case that you couldn't even get a basic fact like that straight
and being unfair and frankly sloppy
, and I am declining it on that basis. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:53, 4 August 2020 (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.
Do not put quote markes around "right" just to mischaracterise what I said. You know fine well what I meant, it refers to Wikipedia policy only. Pursuant to which, I have addressed the concerns as best I can, absent specifics, I can do no more than say I will try to be more concise and less repetitive. If you or anyone else wants to take ownership of these bogus conflict of interest accusations, please do so, but if it upsets you that I react very poorly to having my appeal assessed by someone who did not even get the material facts of that serious charge correct, but claims to be a Wikipedia Administrator (who is expected to act fairly and with good judgement at all times - policy), you are not going to like me at all. I am facts oriented person. I am an ethics oriented person. I am not a beg to be a part of a community which has no care for facts or ethics even in the manner in which it permanently excludes people, person. Go Into The Light (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
As an example of what the people who asked for me to be blocked had to personally gain from their crocodile tears, but who manifestly didn't have Wikipedia's best interests at heart in doing so, can anyone actually identify from my comment on this Afd where I ever "proposed an exception to PROF", or as was claimed at the Administrative noticeboard even, that I supposedly argued that PROF "doesn't apply". To my eye, these are blatant lies, and this block unjustly prevents me from calling out Guy Macon for behaviour which is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia, or at least I had assumed it was. This block therefore assumes that letting Guy Macon lie, is a benefit to Wikipedia. Is it? He did, after all, lie pretty blatantly when he pretended that keeping the article for Gunter Bechly would be tantamount to allowing an article for every garage band. Lies are bad for Wikipedia, because they get people interested in what is actually going on here. That lie is the specific reason I got involved in actually editing Wikipedia, rather than being a longtime lurker, so it is no surprise Guy Macon regretted his mistake and wants it all to go away. Indeed, the very fact that it was this lie that direcly seems to have motivated the Administrator to block, that is perhaps the most troubling aspect of all. Did they even bother to check whether Guy Macon was lying or not? Go Into The Light (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- "User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. The above comment shows why; it ignores the fact that Valoem appears to accept the fact that d'Acoz fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) but argues that d'Acoz passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- which does require significant coverage -- based upon the coverage cited in the article."
Eh? It is not my responsibility to address Valoem's mistake in understanding PROF, it is my responsibility to point out that you, Guy Macon, are quite deliberately indulging him in that mistake, because it doesn't suit your purposes to correct him. It is a basic fact that you nominated that biography for deletion for having supposedly failed PROF, and yet already we have two examples of you trying to talk about something else other than the grounds you chose to debate this issue on. Yes I pointed this out, and yes, I was blocked for it. What other details are there? I await, with interest, how this sort of editing can possibly be said to be detrimental to Wikipedia. Go Into The Light (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Once again you are making things up. I nominated it for deletion because if fails WP:PROF (which it does), Valoem argued that, while it fails PROF it passes WP:GNG (it doesn't), and you cluelessly responded as if Valoem was arguing that it fails PROF. Your continued WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE is why you were blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Um, I think I missed the part where you explained where I had made something up? What specifically, did I make up? Competence requires that you can actually answer simple questions like this Guy. Go Into The Light (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
How ironic that it probably doesn't even need a German speaker to properly assess whether or not the Friedrich von Alberti Award is a prize that would mean PROF is met, but to this layman editor, who has seen first hand how little awareness there seems to be of the widespread problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia, it seems to be good enough to give people pause as to whether or not this is yet another deletion that is being motivated by something other than a desire to improve Wikipedia. I can't vote, of course, because the person who started that debate, successfully persuaded an Administrator that I have no other interest here except Gunter Bechly. How did he prove that? By complaining that I had other interests, of course. Interests like this - Wikipedia's total failure in certain scenarios to even try to be seen to be doing the right thing in Afd debates. Still, if this makes sense to Captain Eek as proof of a conflict of interest, who am I to disagree? My knowledge of Wikipedia policy is clearly complete rubbish. I wonder if Guy Macon will suffer any consequences if it turns out he has needlessly wasted editors precious time with this ill advised nomination. Perhaps an immunity from that level of scrutiny is truly what fourteen years experience buys you here. Is that the case, Kevin? The unwritten customs you referred to? Go Into The Light (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Valoem created the Jens Franzen page on 04:14, 3 August 2020 with zero evidence of notability." - Guy Macon.
Zero? ZERO? It's bad enough that he doesn't know or care that it was Dave Souza had suggested to Valoem that this extant German Wikipedia biography was notable enough for English Wikipedia (if only out of the POINTY desire to highlight the lack of achievement of the similar case of Bechly, as I highlighted in my comment about systemic bias, a comment that Guy Macon did see, because he mocked it). But now, to use a word like "zero" in that context? My knowledge of Wikipedia policy is not so rubbish to not know that this sort of outrageous trolley of good faith contributors should be attracting warnings for uncollegiate behaviour, not the (seemingly likely) reward of seeing Guy Macon's promised report of Valeom to the Administrators resulting in a NOTHERE or even COMPETENCE block. This is the Wikipedia side of the story Guy Macon. You wanted people to pay attention to it, to ensure it is accurately reported. Here it is, ready for you to dispute any factual errors. Go Into The Light (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked
That's quite enough. You are not to use your talk page to continue to debate how you are right, especially as a blocked user. As you continue with this tact I have removed your rights to edit your talk page. Should you wish to be unblocked, you must user WP:UTRS to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)