CEngelbrecht2

Sock

This account appears to be a sock of CEngelbrecht. What's going on? Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(Add) and are you also Aquapess? Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not Aquapess. If I just add a '2' to a dungeoned username, would I really be using other clandestine accounts? Fuck me, that there are more than one person out there thinking, that the waterside idea is being raped by Academia. What a world, what a world. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, just because two people have a similar opinion about something, it doesnt mean they are being sock puppets!

If you read carefully you can see that our tone and phrasing is completely different, but it seem clear to me that most things deemed pro-AAT are dismissed immediately without being actually read and considered logicallyAquapess (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban warning

What exactly is a "dungeoned" username, per above?[1] It's not a word I understand, in the context of something that happens on a website. User:CEngelbrecht isn't in a dungeon in the sense of being blocked. Do you mean the older account has a fairly embarrassing history, which you wanted to have less visible? (I see I blocked it twice myself in 2013.) Anyway, I'm concerned by your contributions to Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis under this account as well. I'll consider topic banning you from the article if you don't let up with the personal attacks, the relentless repetitiusness, and the nasty tone. Your talk of "raping the rules"[2] and "being raped by academic stupidity"[3] is offensive. So is aggressively calling people "darling" and groundlessly accusing them of bad-faith editing and "censorship"[4]. Don't call them "mate" or "lad" either. Those words might sound friendly in a totally different context, but in your hostile posts they sound more like you're condescending to inferiors. Do you see anybody else addressing you like that? Drop it. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

You ever tried being a Giordano Bruno? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't log on to CEngelbrecht for years, untill I tried just now. I think somebody just unlocked it. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? It was last blocked in September 2013, for one week only. See the block log here. You used it up to January 2014, see the contributions here. Would you like me to block it? That's a serious offer. I assume you don't intend to use both accounts — you'd be in trouble if you did — and CEngelbrecht2 is the most recent one, with a good long gap between them, so should preferably be used from now on. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

I'm serious, I haven't been able to log on to '1' before just now. Requesting a password sent to my mail address also came up empty. I tried all of that before I created '2' a week ago (in my indignation of another big round of vandalism against the aquatic article).

But there's no point in having more than one, so go ahead and close '1'. (Can I then link my mail address to '2'?) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll take care of it tomorrow. Sure you can have the same e-mail address, just add it in your preferences in the usual way. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

All right, cheers. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, isn't it ridiculous, how such a large portion of academic consensus relies on liking or disliking personalities? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for six months from Aquatic ape hypothesis and related pages, broadly construed. Please see WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for persistent attacks and unremitting incivility while discussing the Aquatic ape hypothesis. Right after being warned about your tone, you post this on ANI. "Fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense"? That's the last straw. Apparently my warning made no impression on you at all.

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/Pseudoscience#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. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what possessed you to post this but it's in direct violation of your topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for f... sake. How are you supposed to know all this crap? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually read the message and follow the links? 'Please see WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.' --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"...and related pages." Right. So just leave all of you to your ignorance, that was the salient point, wasn't it? 'Cause the utmost insult to learned peoples is being in the right, when everyone else is in the wrong.

"If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right." - Jules Renard

"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." - Leo Tolstoy

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing logged out

You can remove things from this page using your account, if you wish. But don't log out and do it from your IP. And don't call information about your topic ban "vandalism", it just looks ridiculous. Would you have preferred not to be told about the ban, really? Bishonen | talk 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

Darling, I honestly don't understand all these insider's only rules. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and for for violating your topic ban with these edits despite warnings and explanations of what a topic ban is., you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You have been amply warned and explained to; I don't see how you can still not have known what a topic ban is, unless you want to claim a WP:CIR exemption. Now I'd better tell you what a block is: you, the real person who controls the account User:CEngelbrecht2, are blocked. You are not allowed to evade the block by editing logged out or creating new accounts. I hope that's quite clear. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

How can I assume good faith here??? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The following edits represent a violation of your topic ban:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

Bishonen and NeilN have already explained to you why you were topic banned, and you have already been blocked once for violating it. Do not attempt to plead ignorance; you have been given every chance to be a productive editor, and you have instead, chosen to be a disruptive editor. You single-minded focus on this article and combative attitude are not appreciated by the rest of us, who have to deal with the disruption you are causing. I am normally a very patient man with my fellow editors, advising warnings and mentorship over sanctions in most cases. However, you have reached the end of my patience. If I see you editing in this topic area again in the next 5 months or so, I will start a thread at WP:ANI requesting that you be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't censor this idea to death. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked again

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban from Aquatic ape hypothesis yet again, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• Per the diffs supplied above, I'm not sure if you're aiming for suicide by admin or just don't care any more. Please note that your privilege of editing this page can be revoked if you continue to use it for soapboxing. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

Are you guys doing anything to prevent the vandalism of that topic? Do you care anymore? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just indignation. That is my only crime. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, do you care? Wiki prides itself of being a place for information, has all these random, chaotic rules attempting to ensure that. But does de facto nothing to protect a divisive topic from vandalism. The Aquatic ape hypothesis page had a decent rewrite, balanced, neutral, to the point. But all you lot called it internally was a snivelling "singing the praises of the aquatic ape," and allowed the vandals to run amok. And why? Because as soon as this grossly misrepresented topic gets a balanced presentation, any sane educated person can't laugh at it anymore. And that's its crime, isn't it? We're all supposed to laugh at it, so how dares it make sense?

Can't assume good faith from you lot. The aquatic ape supporters are Galileo, and the naysayers are Pope Urban. You have all ended up on the wrong side of history, pissing on your own giants. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely you must have seen this one coming...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tarage (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood the length of your topic ban. My apologies. --Tarage (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What is it you expect of me? Am I just supposed to ignore this constant gutting of a very serious topic? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Aquatic ape hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you do, if a divisive topic is being censored? Which this one has been for years. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Write a book or a blog? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Those have already been written. How about you reading some of those, instead of thinking, you know what an idea is suggesting?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98 --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The greatest idea of our generation, and you think you know what it's about. And we're not supposed to be able to read on Wikipedia, what it's actually about, 'cause when you read what it's actually about, you can't laugh anymore. And you only know, that you're supposed to laugh at it, 'cause you know what it's about. Even though you don't.

What a fucking Kafka travesty. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

I had to undo this edit per WP:PSCI. I also notice that you have a topic ban in the area; this is a warning that I will have to report you at WP:AE if you remove it again (I would normally say without consensus, but I think that being topic banned also prevents discussing the issue on Wikipedia). I'm sorry that it turned out this way. There are better places than Wikipedia to promote this idea. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I was told that that topic ban had expired. But who cares, when people think they know what such and such divisive idea is about, 'cause they think they don't have to read the actual sources? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, such as this, and notably this "rape imagery — you've been sanctioned for similar stuff before. If you carry on in the same way when you return from the block, I'll block you indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia.. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note also that if you use this page as a battleground blog or soapbox during the block, I'll revoke talkpage access. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC).

It is extremely difficult to assume good faith on that particular issue. Am I expected to be tolerant against those, that are themselves intolerant? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Alert

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 recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Your comments in Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis are not every helpful. You discount the theory. I get it. They person you are pissed at gets it. Small children living on the outskirts of Kathmandu get it. How about you back off the derision and just TALK to the other person. I cannot guarantee you that they will come around to your point of view, but I can absolutely guarantee you that your current approach is not working. If someone talked to you like that on the street, there would be blood - so be nicer, please.
Please try to be collaborative. The article exists. It is never going to go away. Find a way to build a consensus, or at the very least a No-Man's Land. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian You're mistaken about what is happening: CEngelbrecht2 is an AAH proponent but is writing in such a sarcastic manner that readers not attuned to it will not understand. This continues a long history of disruptive Talk page behaviour on this top. Edits like the following

1. Display of bad faith[11] "I sincerely doubt, that Alexbrn has actually read it him/herself"
2. Piss imagery[12] "y'all can keep urinating on your own giants"

are evidence in support of the need for a permanent TBAN here, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm already asked not to edit on that article. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are not topic banned so far as I can see. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but I've been requested to not touch the article. Fair enough, I am an angry bastard about this idea, because I keep track of the litterature, the rest of y'all aren't supposed to know exists. I have my reasons to assume bad faith on this one. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht2, I am telling you - quite plainly - to take those reasons for assuming bad faith, and set them on fire. They will do you absolutely no good here. Being angry gets zero done and will likely get you - at the very least - topic-banned, and probably substantially blocked.

Ask yourself: do you do more good to the article by staying calm and present and collaborative, or by not being around the article at all?

Its a controversial subject, and you are going to always be fighting an uphill battle on this. If you aren't prepared to stay out of combat mode on this, you need to back away and let cooler heads edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

-

>>Ask yourself: do you do more good to the article by staying calm and present and collaborative, or by not being around the article at all?

I have found, that civil tone or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The article will be continously censored anyway. Then I'd much prefer sticking to plain speak calling it, 'cause that's what's going on. Whether by creationist minded people or minds of otherwise Free Science.

-

Some years back, I witnessed a bizarre editing war on that article over the inclusion of the word 'iodine'. One user repeatedly made a series of edits, some of them correcting some minor grammatical and code errors... while also removing any mention of iodine in the article at the same time. Like a thief in the night trying to censor iodine out of this summary.

So, why iodine? What's its significance here? Iodine is in fact one of the strongest arguments in the aquatic debate, because the biochemistry of the human brain suggests, that hominins would've had to have gotten iodine through their general diet for hundreds of thousands of years in order to evolve a bigger and bigger human brain. That's the argument presented by biochemists like Stephen Cunnane. Also included are specific fatty acids, primarily DHA. The aquatic debate centers on whether these key micronutrients would've been available in big enough quantities in a purely terrestrial diet, which isn't very likely for DHA, and de facto impossible for iodine. A few question marks can be raised about DHA, it might have been biochemically synthethized by specific proteins from other, terrestrial, fatty acids. There is nothing to doubt for iodine. Iodine just isn't available on land, which is why modern civilization iodize their kitchen salt. But, iodine is abundant in aquatic food chains, as is DHA. That's the argument presented. It may somehow still be wrong, but that's the argument from peer-reviewed litterature. In this, DHA isn't mentioned without iodine, and iodine isn't mentioned without DHA.

But, back then, one user was very eager to sneak in the complete removal of 'iodine' from the article. Keeping DHA in there, sure, but not iodine. And it doesn't make any sense to remove any mention of iodine, it's integral to the argument. Unless, there's a subversive agenda. Ie. censorship.

Watching this battle over the word 'iodine' told me back then, that somebody out there knows perfectly well the iodine argument, knows how strong an argument it is, knows that it probably settles the whole aquatic debate... and then that user determines, that the best cause of action is that the casual reader shouldn't be allowed to know that that argument exists. To burn those banned volumes.

And yes, I do get imflamed by that and respond to that. That's why I can't assume good faith in there, 'cause there's a disgusting human corruption at play here. A good host of people out there do no care, what human origin actually was. Somehow, that's an inconvenient truth for them. And I can't see, why I'm not supposed to call them on it. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you are stating that you cannot assume good faith, your final destination within Wikipedia is, at the very least, a topic ban. That means you are actually wanting to be blocked from adding, editing or changing ANY content in the area which to you clearly care about. Is that truly your goal?

This is a binary decision, CEngelbrecht2; either you assume good faith and work with others to create a good article, or your viewpoint will remove that option from you. There is no third choice, and I am speaking from experience on this matter. Take some time to think about this. You have a pretty important decision to make. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm already asked not to edit on the article, for a couple of years now.

See how many words I had to use to give just a quick summary of the iodine argument? Somebody out there must've understood all that. And then ventured to remove any mention of iodine from the casual reader's eye. How can you have any honest collaboration with subversive people like that? It is like Galileo trying to reason with Pope Urban.

Wiki makes strong efforts to protect articles about Darwin and evolution from malignent, politically driven vandalism, because it's needed. They don't make any effort on an article like this. 'Cause the topic is 'controversial'. Therefore the vandals are allowed free reign. And what makes it even more grotesque is that creationists and Free Science PAs take equal part in all the misinformation. PAs from arrogant envy in not having discovered this themselves, and creationists from the horror of seeing the last questions about human origin left over from Darwin answered. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

pa

And this edit summery [[13]] is a PA, please read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no benefit in being tolerant towards the intolerant. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You may now take this as a warning, if you make any more PA's I will take it to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For all those complex systems, Wiki still can't protect this topic.

I don't know what would be worse, if this vandalism comes from soldiers of creationism, or misguided voices of free science. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Accusing users of vandalism with out good cause can also be regarded as a PA (please read wp:npa). I suggest you stop commenting on users and their actions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have good cause, mister. Years running. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism is not adding (or subtracting) material you disagree with, it is deliberate attempts to damage a page. I am giving you no more AGF, this is deliberate and knowing, and you are now fully aware of our polices. Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

He was being a punk. His pseudoscience edit had been rejected months earlier. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I've indefinitely blocked you for being disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. I've put a longer list in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)