User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792

Special:EmailUser/EnlightenmentNow1792

Welcome!

Hello, EnlightenmentNow1792, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Greyjoy ^talk 07:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Prior accounts

Have you used any prior account on Wikipedia? I'm thinking User:Ledenierhomme and his various socks. nableezy - 19:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe I did at some stage, about 2-3 years ago, but I forgot what the username was, and I got a new laptop, so I created this one recently. I'm flattered, I'm sure, but why so curious? This User:Ledenierhomme you speak of, is he your White Whale? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Why curious? Because we have a policy that prohibits banned users from creating new accounts. No worries, will lay this out in a sockpuppet investigation if I get annoyed enough. nableezy - 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do, it'll be riveting I'm sure! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: his rhetoric sounds so similar, and see this. Beshogur (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"rhetoric"? How is simply quoting - from what I can tell is - the leading academic scholarship on this topic, "rhetoric"? And why should it be any surprise to you that in the talk page and in the article Johanson is cited as an authority numerous times? Shouldn't that tell you something Beshogur? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. nableezy - 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Damn, you got me! Go on then, nableezy, please be my guest, "lay this out in a sockpuppet investigation". Surely I deserve it for tormenting you all these years! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What ANI is

You probably have learned what ANI is since this thread, but if not here's a briefing: Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is for receiving help for settling disputes or dealing with users when things need administrator attention, such as moving and protecting pages and other things that regular users don't have the ability to do. It's mainly used for discussing or handling users when they get out of hand and if something is posted there about someone it's usually with the intention of getting them blocked to prevent future problems.

You've been mentioned here most likely not for your contributions of these sources you're discussing on the talk page but rather for failing to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:TEXTWALL. Personally, I think this is a premature discussion, but it could be better off for you not to be too bold that your ideals are the right ones in future discussions, and be open to other opinions and discussing them. Maybe also to be less frank with what you feel, because it's often taken personally by other editors. And while you were also criticized for WP:SPA, I wouldn't stress that. People contribute to topics they like and that's it all the time; would I rather prefer to write about the Paper Mario series a seventh time or decide, "Nah, people might accuse me of SPA, lemme force myself to contribute to some cell strand for the next month"? Panini!^🥪 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!:Are you an admin? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Now isn't that ironic? Panini!^🥪 03:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!:Well thanks (I think?) for your input :-) Can you explain to me - what actually happened to that ANI? It's disappeared, and I never heard anything about it again. Is that typical? Reported "incidents" (I still don't know what the incident was) drift into the ether without an admin/s making a ruling? Would that mean there's generally no penalty for filing frivolous "incident reports"? His last one he accused me of being a sockpuppet (three people on two separate articles have done that - is that also typical on WP?), disruptive editor, and "Also he's definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, (wp:nothere), by his editing rethoric+talk page contributions." Days have gone past, and he still hasn't specified any objections to my edits: only insults and accusations, and complaints that I write too many words on Talk. What I really mean, is it safe to just ignore him at this point?

I clicked on this contributions, can see what his game is, but I can't see that he adds much to the project, or has the degree of competence nor expertise required to meaningfully contribute to his pet subject area.

For example, I clicked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benlittlewiki#Arab_name_on_Murad_V

And it's apparent he can't read Ottoman Turkish or even recognize the Ottoman Turkish alphabet, perhaps not even able to differentiate between it and the Arabic alphabet. When I attempted to point out that in the article Murad V's "Ottoman Turkish" written name in the first line was in fact his written name in Arabic, his reply was: "It's the infobox. I mean Arabic alphabet. Sorry for misunderstand."................... what?

And this guy is policing my contributions on linguistics? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, the discussion was automatically archived by a bot due to lack of activity, but you can still view the discussion here. When a discussion has been automatically archived, usually someone will pull it back into mainspace if they feel it hasn't garnered enough attention on the matter. It's been a couple of days, so I wouldn't stress too much about it. There's a pattern in ANI discussions that usually fall within three categories:

1. Reports of vandalism, trolling, or other urgent requests that is solved immediately and archived.
2. Discussions that are premature or the user who was reported is acting in good faith with some faults. Normally people emphasize that what they're doing is wrong, but after a couple of slaps on the back of the head administrator action isn't required, or at least not at the moment.
3. Probems that have good arguments for both sides and get extremely complicated. Usually they lead to no consensus and everyone moves on, but sometimes its outsourced to something beyond ANI.

I think you fall into category two here, but that doesn't mean you should take the ANI with a grain of salt: avoid satire such as the comments you were called out for there. When I first joined I used satire often, and frankly, things didn't go too well. Besides, comments such as "you are a complete novice in this field" may be viewed poorly (some people might take it personally) and people won't take your proposals seriously, although what you're saying is accurate. And TEXTWALLing is never a good thing; it's most likely difficult to summarize into something minimal considering the size of the topic, so using the templates {{Collapse top|Title of table}} and {{Collapse bottom}} could help condense references and other large explanations you may have. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables for more. Panini!^🥪 13:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to learn how to do all that formatting/styles/tables caper. Ugh... I hated computer programming at school! Cheers man. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar

I considered mentioning this in the relisting comment, but you have put a lot of text into making your points on the deletion discussion. It is not advisable to bludgeon discussions, as the policy supplement on bludgeoning states: If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear.. This isn’t a terrible mistake to make, and I do understand from your post that this is your first AFD. But, at this stage, as you have made your viewpoint clear on the matter, it would be a good idea to step back and let others in the community now discuss the matter to come to a total consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI discussion where you may wish to give your own side of the story of your editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 16:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing? AGF? Civility? Insults?

For the record: HouseOfChange has just written this:

@Bbb23: or some other admin: Could we have an indef block until there is some acknowledgement by EnlightenmentNow1792 that policies AGF, CIVIL, or BLUDGEON apply to him? Even those who consider themselves subject-matter experts don't get free rein to insult and abuse other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Previously, I had counted what I could remember of his insults/accusations (11):

So, 'too wordy', 'unwilling to listen', disrespectful, 'POV-pushing', 'adding peacock text', oh and having a 'political agenda' was I believe his first accusation (the second was being a sockpuppet), now HouseOfChange is moving onto accusing me of having a CoI now a third time now (thankfully he has finally ceased bombing my talk page with warnings and threats that he would take me to this place and get be banned, despite me repeatedly asking him not to on my talk page, four times before he ceased). Now my CoI is that I am a journalist and on here to bash 'my colleagues'? Sorry, no, I'm not, dabbled many, many decades ago, but like square-dancing and cigars, it's just not for me. And I'm the one who has a problem with personal attacks? I'll let the admin/s be the judge of that. I'll try to furnish them with diffs when this bout of nausea dissipates. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

All I ever did was criticize his sourcing, and his stubbornness in failing to understand what a RS is.

So who was the greater insulter here? Who displayed more of a battleground mentality? Even after I'm banned, the insults and threats continue, and he wants to see me gone forever. Wow. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. He is doing pretty much the same thing over in my corner of the wiki. Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

My Defence intended for the ANI (before Bbb23's insta-block)

My first interaction with HouseOfChange, was his reverting[1] my restoration (so, immediately not adhering to the WP:BRD cycle) of content that was reliably sourced and made a fair point. Namely, the Anti-Defamation League questioning why he would twice attend the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, not just in 2014, after which many anti-Israeli journalists expressed disgust at the antisemitism, conspiracy-mongering, and Holocaust denial on display, but again in 2019.

I didn't want to engage in a petty back-and-forth at the time, as it seemed obvious to me the other editor was in unfamiliar territory and would realize who he was defending in good time, or else, and this I thought much more likely, lose interest all together.

The ADL criticism remains absent. As does any criticism. HouseOfChange has made sure of that.

He then proceeded to construct a weighty, quite impressive looking article, which, unfortunately, paid virtually no attention whatsoever as to what qualifies as a reliable source.[2], [3]

Here,[4] he states, upon yet another revert, "restore text and references that clearly show evidence of NJOURNALIST #1. "analyst" is sourced to 2 RS)

What reliable sources cite him, you might ask?

Well, none, really. Jacobin - not a great source - quotes him on his Brazilian compatriot Lula, the quote itself showing the kind of nuance and considered journalism Jacobin is renowned for: "The fact remains that, in the words of journalist and international relations analyst Pepe Escobar, 'Lula is Brazil’s only possible factor of stability.' I don't know who comes out looking the more ridiculous there. Hindsight is 20/20 though of course. Something seasoned journalists are supposed to be well aware of (Pepe's words there are very typically untypically journalistic, if you know what I mean. He never was a reporter, so he never had to temper his language or enthusiasm, or his flights of fancy - 9/11 denial, Covid-denial, and all the rest).

And so it goes, he just does a horrible job of it.

The sources he added ranged from "KBOO FM", school teachers, self-published blogs, "Filmmaker Magazine", etc. Almost all of them were trivial mentions, many times Escobar wasn't even name-checked by the author, one of the hundreds of Op-Eds he penned would merely appear in the footnotes of a source of either unknown or middling reliability/notability.

If the source was solid, like The New Republic, then it would mention Escobar only to disparage him as a spreader of misinformation, hyperbole, flights of fancy and conspiracy theories.

None of this bothered me too much at first, except for the fact that he kept accusing me of things (sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, political bias, etc). He had no evidence for any of this, he just randomly threw these accusations out there.

I thought he'd come around eventually, but his sourcing actually got worse, much worse. A long with his attitude (I kept asking him to please not post big signs and threats on my talk page, but he kept on doing so).

Here,[5] he says "Please AGF that my edits to the article are intended to improve Wikipedia by providing NPOV information about a journalist notable enough for an article".

How could he possibly know at this point if Escobar was a notable journalist? He'd still been unable to find a single notable article penned by him, or another notable journalist citing him.

Nevertheless, he wrote: "Escobar has reported extensively from Afghanistan. In August 2000, Escobar and two other journalists were arrested by the Taliban, and accused of photographing a soccer match." No one was able to find any evidence of this ever actually happening. Escobar has made many such fantastic, unverifiable claims throughout his career. For example, that he met Osama bin Laden before 9/11 and warned everyone about him - no such warnings or reports of a meeting exist in print anywhere prior to 9/11... which he believes was a hoax anyway.

Still, he continued to revert me, restoring the bad sources (filmmakermagazine.com, kboo.fm, etc) I'd removed. And he continued threatening me on my Talk page [6].

This is where things took a weird turn.

Amidst continuing threats [7] he would say things like "You seem to be a new editor, at least with this account, so I hope you will take note of well-meaning advice to review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You should not get into a habit of edit summaries that violate either"

Ironically, he wrote (what was really another veiled pre-emptive threat I can see now in retrospect): "If you want to continue to accuse me of POV-pushing, or if you continue to violate core policies, ANI will be the place to get help from other editors. It's an awful place, and I advise us both to avoid it."

Hate to keep using the word "ironically", but after still failing to find him cited by any peers in RSs, he wrote: "You are mistaken to think that I am trying to portray him as an expert or authority--he is a journalist, widely-cited enough that it is a service to our readers to provide them with some information about him. If you consider him not notable as a journalist, I suggest filing an AfD so that others can express an opinion." [8]

Here[9] he bizarrely accuses me of WP:NPOV for not deleting yet another atrocious self-published source by a non-peer, but just saying

Here[10] you can see by now his civility has totally disappeared by now, and he can barely conceal his contempt.

Here[11] he again doesn't follow BRD, and accuses me of not following BRD. However, my patience is starting to run a little thin at this point too, so instead of ignoring it like last time, I stand strong and insist he adheres to policy.

After my AfD[12] obliterates his poor sources, he all of a sudden changes his tune completely[13] and the only defense he offers after putting in all this effort is:

"*Weak keep Escobar is just barely notable enough that we do our readers a service by having a short encyclopedia article about him. See above for my reasoning.

The first editor to weigh-in agrees with me 100% and echoes my criticisms of HouseOfChange's poor sources.[14]

But instead of taking on this advice and treating it as a learning experience, he doubles down. And the rest, as they say, is history.

He resorts to Fake News websites, Blacklisted websites, Far-Far Right antisemitic Holocaust Denial websites....Here hides my comments[15] without asking. I don't complain, it's clear to me that this will be over soon... or so I thought...

But no, he starts defending Escobar publishing for RussiaInsider as no big deal.[16] Someone pops up with a YouTube clip, and ludicrously claims "He [Escobar] has also met former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who frequently reads his work"[17] and all of a sudden he wants to have another swing at it.

Now comes the demonstrably false claim that Escobar "is well known for breaking stories in the Arab and Muslim worlds."[18] The source for this is a friend of Escobars, a former backpacking pal, who somehow managed to blog, once, at The Atlantic Council. But never again. If you read the piece you'll see why. He implies Escobar used to be a CIA agent and he predicted al-Qaeda's presence in Libya before anyone else. This friend of Pepe refers to non-existent articles for think-tanks Escobar never worked for. Escobar has never repeated any of this claims. And Borchgrave's journalistic career predictably ended in disgrace. Mass plagiarism.

By this point he's citing F. William Engdahl, Veterans Today, GlobalResearch.ca, InfoWars, a medical journal (weird), he's standing behind Russia Insider again, quoting philosphers mentioning his name on their website as "a cite from a RS" and, most comically of all, he cites a RS calling Escobar a crank and a non-RS - he tries to use that as an example of his esteem as a journalist.[19]

Upon realizing the mistakes he's made, he sees me active in the Persian Gulf RfC, spots me disagreeing with someone, and then goes over there, to nominate me here, taking that editor - Apaugasma - with him.[20]

It was a cunning, calculated move, timed perfectly to get me blocked. Well played I must say - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

AE logged warning

This warning is to inform you that you must curb the WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially for a topic area as contested as WP:ARBEE. The way you're going about things right now isn't sustainable in the long run, so you need to self-correct if you wish to continue editing pages covered by the sanction. I'll be logging the warning at WP:AEL. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 11:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: What are you referring to exactly? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Are you an admin? Either way, can you please point me to what you regard as me showing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? So I can take well heed of your advice to "self-correct"? Much appreciated. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 12:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your latest comment at ANI (diff). I also randomly sampled a diff from your contribs (this one), which I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. It is too aggressive and adversarial, needlessly so. When you address other editors, just stick to being matter of fact. It helps no one, yourself included, when you falter there. Thanks again. El_C 12:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So, a response to an unprovoked personal attack, which was a reply to my Comment that the thread was a disgrace (sharing much the same sentiments as yourself I would've thought?)... is tantamount to WP:BATTLEGROUND? It was the first interaction I had with that person! I mean, that's not even a Foul is it? Surely not a Yellow!

Regarding the second: context is everything here. When lengthy, involved discussion is ongoing on the Talk Page, someone bursts out of nowhere with a list of sources such as 2014 tabloid news articles, self-published books, fringe partisan publications by fringe unheard of presses, The Telegraph and two academic papers that actually support my contention - all of which he characterizes as "higher-quality" than mine (which are, incidentally, the highest one can get, starting with the acknowledged leading scholars on this very issue such as Andreas Unlamd,[21] Rybiy, Shekhovtsov, Fedorenko, and many more besides. My pointed comment was to instill the lesson I thought s/he should've learned already: before adopting a Battleground mentality, claiming "consensus" (seriously, yes), making massive changes to the article, multiple reverts, even repeatedly removing the the "NPOV" and "Disputed" tags themselves (claiming "consensus")... one should probably read the sources the other people (the majority in fact) on the Talk Page had been discussing for the past week, no?

Surely that's anti- WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, isn't it?

At least I thought it was, because I accused him of as much from the moment he came blustering in making countless edits and reverts and claiming "consensus", deleting RS, all in the space of about 12 hours!

I didn't touch the article at all, except to try to twice add page the POV tags that had been added and reverted something like a dozen times during that period of time because, as the editor kept telling us, "consensus had already been established" in 2021. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, even if that were so, it is inappropriate to respond to BATTLEGROUND with BATTLEGROUND in turn. That is not "anti-BATTLEGROUND" or whatever. Beyond that, I'm throwing you a lifeline here, which you do not appear to recognize as such. You've engaged in sanctionable behaviour, so you need to adjust moving forward. If you reach an impasse on an article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests that you may avail yourself of. El_C 12:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What impasse? Sorry, I just don't follow your reasoning at all here. Seems like an admin equivalent of drive-by tagging. If you'll excuse me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You can think what you will, EnlightenmentNow1792, but I feel like I've explained myself clearly enough. If you repeat the misconduct, the likely outcome will be a topic ban from ARBEE. El_C 12:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

3RR violation on Azov Battalion

Your most recent revert restoring the POV tag to Azov Battalion breached the 3RR. ([22][23][24][25], with less than 24 hours between them.) I suggest you self-revert. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? Do you sincerely believe there is no dispute as to the NPOV and the sourcing in this article? Or is this just more WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not about whether it does or doesn't; it's about WP:3RR (assuming their count was correct; I haven't checked). Please don't be hasty in throwing around terms like BATTLEGROUND; principles like 3RR are important here. And in my opinion, WP:1RR applies, not 3RR because the article is under WP:AC/DS for EE. Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't count it either, as I consider it so trivial. It's obvious there is an ongoing dispute, why try and hide it? I'm characterizing the very threat from him of getting me blocked for it as being petty and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Which I don't throw around hastily, as I've seen it demonstrated in his editing on the article in question, and I've seen him having being accused of it multiple times over the past few months in his edit history. Moreover, I see that he spends much, much more time on Incident Noticeboards trying to get people banned than he does even on POV-pushing in the very select, partisan, parochial, politically charged range of articles he edits on. This BATTLEGROUND mentality is, I believe easily demonstrated when you observe (a) an editor's article selection: highly politically charged issues in the news and pop culture; and (b) an inordinate time spent at ANI, 3RR, warning new users, issuing threats to new users as if they were admin; coupled with very, very little time spent actually trying to improve articles or conduct research to find appropriate RS for articles. I've observed this type of highly-active editor acts as if they're allergic to actually reading sources. Googling they're okay with, but reading? Not a chance. Spending hours on ANI noticeboards filling out complaints though on the other hand - that they apparently consider a very good use of their time! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Old hat

Thanks for your comment here. If that's the case, since my Russian is only ru-1, I may well call on you for assistance at an article I've been working on, but have been on hiatus for a while for this other stuff. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

bez problema chuvak! ;-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Spasibo bolshoye. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is EnlightenmentNow1792. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

If you continue to disrupt the complaint against you at AE, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How am I "disrupting the complaint"? And why are you the only admin that ever has anything to do with me when my name appears at WP:AE WP Administrators Noticeboards? And why did you ignore my question that I asked of you on your own Talk page? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You are perilously close to being indefinitely blocked. Your insidious false claims, your feigning not understanding, and your aggression are obvious with everything you say. As for the matter of disrupting the complaint, you are allowed to write in one place and one place only, in your own section. You have made such a mess of the structure of the complaint that it would be tough for anyone to fix. You are also restricted to 500 words in your statement. I don't even normally participate at AE - the only reason I'm there is because you pinged me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked? Feigning not understanding? Aggression?

I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I'll take the initial advice I was given and just cease editing at Admin incident noticeboards altogether.

Hope that helps.

(How did I ping you btw? I definitely did not intend to do that) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What "initial advice"? You've never edited at WP:AE before today. You've been brought before other administrative noticeboards, but not that one. You pinged me by mentioning my username in a manner that is described in WP:NOTIFICATION.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE, ANI, whatever, I'm confused with the names, that whole area (I thought WP:AE covered it all).

I did not mean to ping you. Wasn't aware it worked like that.

I was told when I first joined - and I actually advised others of the same - to stay away from administrative noticeboards, as any involvement at all there will reflect poorly upon you, guilt by association, even if you are just trying to give yourself a fair trial. I'm still not sure what the best course of action to take. Depends a lot on the individual admin from what a can tell, something of a crapshoot. Very hard to predict what the outcome of any given admin's ruling, in my observation. But I would have to spend several hours looking through archived "incidents" and rulings before I could make such as categorical judgement. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop removing the {{reflist-talk}} template. It keeps the citations you have added in your own section. - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comment about the references Elinruby (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie and Elinruby: Roger that. I was actually trying to remove them altogether, as I've also tried to do on article Talk pages on purely aesthetic grounds, but I don't know how. However, having taken another look at the section in question, I feel their presence stands as an essential testimony. That is, when you cast your glance at the pile-on comments of users such as Johnuniq, who says, without irony, and with all the self-awareness of one of the authors of the third-worst poetry in the entire universe "I have seen credible claims (although of course nothing is really credible in the fog of war)...... Umland et al's scholarship dates from 2015-2021 mind you, quite clearly removed from any condensation... "It might therefore be unfortunate to label the whole of the current organization as neo-Nazi (that's might—I have no reliable sources)."... really? scroll up maybe?... "Even if that and more were true, EnlightenmentNow1792's approach is not compatible with a topic under discretionary sanctions.

My approach being that of arguing on the article's Talk page for a strict conformity with WP:POLICY? God forbid we should be especially diligent in our adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:ONUS regarding contentious articles fraught with mounds of disinformation, fake news, and shoddy journalism.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

OK well. If you speak Russian you can definitely be useful if you want to be. I am going to be tied up all day for the next couple of days, and tired in the evenings. If you are taking suggestions, WP:PNT has a backlog of bad Russian translation. You won't be able to do them directly, unfortunately, but you should be able to at least assess the ones on the list, and that *would* unquestionably be helpful. Like, is it sufficiently referenced, does it appear to be correct, etc. Some of, if it is like the French, will be promo. The stuff that seems deathly dull is usually nonetheless of great interest to a niche readership. Mining companies, weapons systems, scientist bios come to mind. Hope that helps. You are allowed to appeal but I would advise you not to do so immediately. Elinruby (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian would be my fourth or fifth language. I am more confident with French and Persian, for example, so I'll stick to those topic areas in the near - and distant - future. I anticipate a long Wiki-break after tonight. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Emails

Thanks to all those who have emailed me to offer their moral support over the proverbial s-show that was the recent Azov RfC... Sadly, I cannot reply without revealing my private email address, unless you also, have set up your email-through-Wikipedia function.

So rest assured I am not ignoring any of you, I am just loathe to disclose my identity to unknown parties given the guaranteed professional humiliation I would endure, if found to be associated with the... -- how could one put this kindly?... carnivalesque, Vogonic den of humorless, bullying sociopaths.... does that work? -- that frequent the Wikipedia Admin/Arbitration/incident/enforcement noticeboards (instead of actually working to improve the standards of this online encyclopedia project). - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Somebody sent me email recently, and I still do not have their email address. If that is a concern. I have to switch into desktop mode to check whether email is still enabled, which is a huge piece of drama on a mobile, but I think it must be as this was not somebody I had invited to email me. And I am still processing what they said, but that is another story. In any event, I am quite willing to get email from you and will try to explain stuff to you if you do. Somebody reading this may have a belly laugh over this offer, as I have recently gotten into trouble myself, but I did it eyes open having decided it was worth it. In case you still don’t want to, here’s thing. People on Wikipedia argue about amazing things. Whether some Mongol warlord was Turkic or Chinese. The origin of some food beloved in two countries that don’t like each other. The admins are over it, and usually lack the background to adjudicate these disputes, so they usually go with whoever seems calmer. I think you should research the use of reflist, as this would indeed make your posts much more readable. Hth Elinruby (talk)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from Eastern Europe

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: A, très bien! merci Monsieur! Drive-by sanctioning par excellence! Félicitations! God forbid we should be especially diligent in our adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:ONUS regarding contentious articles fraught with mounds of disinformation, fake news, and shoddy journalism! - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Babel user box

Hi, EnlightenmentNow. You mentioned your languages here, and if Russian is fourth, I'm guessing you're something like, English/French/Persian/Russian, or maybe Other/English/French/Persian/Russian if English is not your first (but you haven't hinted at another, so I have no idea what it could be). Wikipedia users have created numerous "user boxes" that you may have seen on user pages here and there, and among them, is the Babel user box. Template:Babel is very handy, because it will both stack some user boxes with your language levels on your user page, and also automatically add you to some WP:Categories, such as Category:User fr-3, if you speak an advanced level of French, for example. Try adding this to your user page, and hit the Preview button: {{Babel|en-N|fr-3|fa-3|ru-2}}. Depending on your actual languages, you can add more, and adjust levels as needed. See Wikipedia:Babel for details. Having a Babel template on your user page can be helpful for other editors who interact with you, or who need help in a particular language as well.
As far as the other stuff that is going on, I still feel that you could be a strong contributor to the encyclopedia, going forward. Things are obviously tense just now given recent events, and your comment above about taking a WP:Wikibreak may be a good idea. I've been around for a long time, and I've edited in multiple, highly contentious areas, and know how to navigate them safely. After the dust settles, if you feel like starting a discussion about how to contribute here without getting into trouble, I'm happy to do that. Feel free to contact me at my UTP. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I second Mathglot’s excellent suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done :-). I'd rather keep my mother tongue private, as it is a minority language, from a part of the world where minorities and their languages are... let's say... not exactly appreciated. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully understand. Btw, I think you should definitely consider placing yourself at en-4, because your English is better than just "advanced", imho. (Actually, I have a selfish reason: if you rate your level of English as only a "3", then I'm going to have to drop my fr and es levels to "2" because while fluent, they're not as good as your English. So, c'mon, help me out here! Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

oh I feel the same, believe me, when people undersell their fluency - just makes me look bad, and I actually suck at languages naturally, I'm just a good mimic. however I've met so many total freakazoids in my time who have more facility in 7-12 languages than I have in two, but who say things like "no, I don't speak x" while having actually published a translation of a text/novel in language x but who are just not practiced in speaking it, that I feel guilty even writing "advanced" let alone "native-level" etc! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can I personalize those Babel templates? For example, I like what "ru-2" says, and would like to say that for all four, but en-2, fr-2, and fa-2 say something quite different. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure (check the /doc page), but you can place a template edit request on the template talk page (or at Wikipedia:Requested templates) and see what happens. This is a highly visible template and is Template-protected, so it would require some support from other editors before any change would happen, so think carefully how you would word the request to get the max interest and buy-in from other editors, and then you can try that. See {{Edit template-protected}}. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

with some fiddling you might be able to make a custom box, though I don’t think that would put you on the language lists. Maybe use the standard ones and modify the one I have about a compiler error to say ... I dunno... I went to Russia and all I learned was how to swear like a Cossack ;) or whatever. I was struggling for some joke about FiFi LePew but it would probably just bewilder anyone outside of North America. Up to you, shrug. I am very bad at making jokes personally. I did want to echo Mathglot’s comment on your English; it’s definitely better than 2. Part of that is based on how much work it is, though. Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Another option for you, would be to clone the existing template in your user space, and modify it any way you like, including categorizing your page (or not) in the language categories. That doesn't require any consensus from anybody. I'm a template writer, so I can help you with that, if you like. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t but am interested; please ping me into any instruction that goes on on this topic Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked you indefinitely for disruptive editing, including edit-warring, attacking other editors, and continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2022 (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).

EnlightenmentNow1792 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel as though entering a reason/justification for my appeal would be redundant, but I understand how busy reviewing admins must be, so I'm presuming it is necessary and may be helpful. Firstly, I know it's good form to admit and apologize for any wrongdoing at the off. But in all good conscience I can't do so, since, as with User:Bbb23's first block of myself,[26] one can see that, by any objective measure, I wasn't engaged in any "disruptive editing" at all. I had most recently edited repeatedly - "edit-warring" in a technical sense, perhaps, but not in spirit - as I was doing so according to WP core policy (removing poorly sourced contentious material as per WP:BLP). But had long given up anyway, and continued the discussion on Talk, as I was clearly outnumbered (see Talk[27]). As such, this was a totally unnecessary block. But much worse, it a clearly spiteful, capricious, and most-of-all personal abuse of administrative privileges. I've asked User:Bbb23 to cease WP:HOUNDING me at least three times. By by his own admission, he has expressed his desire to block me[28] ("I would have blocked EN1792 for the topic ban violations, but it's been a long time since I've done an AE block, and I was concerned I'd screw up the paperwork.--User:Bbb23") and here[29](on my Talk page) at least three times (once indefinitely, with this language: "You are perilously close to being indefinitely blocked. Your insidious false claims, your feigning not understanding, and your aggression are obvious with everything you say"). He's admitted to having me on his "WatchList",[30] and has, most bizarrely of all, edited my UserPage,[31] and then insulted me yet again on my Talk page when I expressed my objections to his uninvited interferences and wish that he leave me alone,[32] and claimed he was editing my UserPage for my own "protection"![33] It is my submission, that given this pattern of behavior, that this block was intended to be punitive and not constructive. I would further contend that this sort of behavior by an admin reflects extremely poorly on the broader Wikipedia project. Which, if I'm being honest, I care about much more than whether I am personally unblocked or excluded for ever. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Normally I leave long, diff-heavy wall-o'-text requests to other admins with the time and maybe, some knowledge of the situation. But first I was struck by the logic here of calling a block that cites several perfectly good reasons to block not just you but anybody as "punitive". You misapprehend the way in which a block is "constructive" ... it is so because it is intended to make other editors' experience more productive. Maybe the blocked editor will learn from the experience. We all hope so. But, if the blocked editor returns to their bad habits like the proverbial moth to the flame (or as Rudyard Kipling more famously put it, "the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire"), well, I guess that whether it's punitive or constructive is really a moot point.

The Prime Directive here is: prevent and/or repair damage to the encyclopedia. Period. I would ask you to consider the absurdity of your logic by inviting you to imagine someone complaining that his arrest for murder, arson and marrying a horse was purely "punitive", except that unfortunately there are plenty of people in real life who've made that argument, and they will hardly be the last.

As for you being creeped out by Bbb editing your userpage (in a way that you should have appreciated, as he was undoing damage to it) and having you on his watchlist—well, those are normal behaviors here. Even though I have my user page semi-protected to spare other admins the need to spend time reverting vandalism to it, other people still edit it. Plenty of other people (over 200 at last count, I think) have my user page on their watchlists. I'm sorry if it came as a shock to you, but in this milieu it is normal and accepted behavior that does not in any way constitute wikihounding (and if you know what that is well enough to use the term correctly, I think you have no excuse for pretending to be all flustered). — Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2022 (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.

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).

EnlightenmentNow1792 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All I'm asking for is that an admin take to time to click on the diffs. I don't care what is thought of me, it is the project that suffers from admin conduct like this - not me. I agree 100% with what User:Daniel Case has said above insofar as "The Prime Directive here is: prevent and/or repair damage to the encyclopedia. Period."

A look at my edit history, and my broad and in-depth contributions to Wikipedia and introduction of many dozens of scholarly sources hitherto unutilized, should indicate pretty quickly that I am of net-benefit to Wikipedia, but that is besides the point. What's of utmost importance is, as Daniel Case called it, "the Prime Directive".

Therefore: if (A), being "did User:Bbb23 act in such a way that is unbecoming a Wiki admin? Does prolonged, vindictive and capricious behavior like this benefit the encyclopedia?" is true; then (B) "User:Bbb23 must be reprimanded and the block altered" ought to follow. The evidence for (A) is abundantly clear*, if, the reviewing takes the time to review the evidence.

As Daniel Case says: "Normally I leave long, diff-heavy wall-o'-text requests to other admins with the time and maybe, some knowledge of the situation." This is all I ask. My fair shake. Not for me, but for the broader Wikipedia project and the damage User:Bbb23 is doing to it, and most especially its reputation. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 8:32 am, Today (UTC+1)

*Take, for example, User:Daniel Case's claim that "As for you being creeped out by Bbb editing your userpage (in a way that you should have appreciated, as he was undoing damage to it) and having you on his watchlist—well, those are normal behaviors here." Just a couple of minutes of checking the edit history would reveal this is not true. He had my userpage on his watchlist (why?), and myself and User:Mathglot and User:Elinruby were engaged in a discussion of WikiBabel templates on my Talk Page. User:Mathglot informed me he was making a change to my UserPage, and did so, inviting me to rv if I disagreed. User:Bbb23 barged in, reverted Mathglot, and then insulted me for the umpteenth time on my Talk Page. Incidentally, when I asked him a question long, long ago on his own Talk Page[34], he of course ignored it.

Or: why didn't Bbb23 provide any diffs for when/where I was supposedly engaged in "disruptive" editing? Is such practice acceptable for Wiki admin?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 2 May 2022 (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.

Dis donc

Viens me parler au projet français {fr.wikipedia). J’ai déjà une page là-bas, car j’ai un compte global. Pour toi, c’est peut-être pas conseillé. Beaucoup dépend du niveau de ton français, et je ne sais pas si tu as le droit de répondre içi. Il vaudrait mieux pourtant qu’on en parle ailleurs où on ne te croit pas un danger public ;) et de toute façon il y a trop longtemps depuis que je ne me suis pas servi de mon français écrit. Si tu le peux, laisse-moi un mot içi, que je sache Elinruby (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

He can, but if you're discussing fr-wiki, you might as well just discuss it there. Just create the talk page—it's no different that creating one here—and since it's his, he'll automatically get pinged to it. The other possibility, is sister projects, which don't necessarily have to be in a non-English language; there's Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Meta, and so on, all of which are open to him. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Still trying to get their attention. And I wanted to flash some subjunctive ;) That's a good idea. I will try that. It does assume that they are even signed into Wikipedia at all...but worth a try Elinruby (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikiquote would be a good place for EnlightenmentNow1792's scholarly talents. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Or Wiktionary. Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnlightenmentNow1792. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 15:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)