User talk:Go Into The Light

Admin report
I have started a report on your account activities at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. jps (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
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:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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, — Paleo  Neonate  – 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."
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * 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)

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)

Articles for deletion/Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz
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)

Articles for deletion/Jens Franzen
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)