Global ban for Abd?, Gotta stop that POV-pushing Options

[Abd]

JzG at AN, the usual

Some of the usual usual, but I'd noticed before that T. Canens knew the difference between a block and a ban, and he points it out. JzG will try to get a ban declared, that's his history. Not that it matters.

JzG, however, has been the long-term POV-pusher here, that's clear. EnergyNeutral was, indeed, my sock. Demonstrating how I'd edit if not for the ban. Middle-of-the-road, actually. JzG archived and collapsed a discussion that was started by others, in which I'd merely commented, as if it were mine. EnergyNeutral was cooperating with Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate in physics. By comparison, JzG has a friend who is a scientist. And he's 100% convinced that he's right. (I.e., that what his friend told him years ago is The Truth, which it might even have been, but you have to have some background to understand the issues.) He thinks he's talking about me.

(EnergyNeutral was created for just what I wrote on the EN user page, because of what I saw happening at EnergyCatalyzer, which is either the biggest fraud ever to hit the field of cold fusion, or it's the real thing, and .... the real experts are saying, "Damn! We can't tell, this is either a huge fraud, or Rossi Has Done It." Lying was not involved.) EN "pushed" for reporting what is in reliable sources, only, and added highly skeptical material. Brian Josephson had been active there, that's how he became involved. Off-wiki, he's known as a supporter of cold fusion research, and so have at least two other Nobel laureates in physics....

Hut 8.5 points to the Wikiversity documentation. Why, thanks, Hut! I tried to point to that on-wiki and it was Revision Deleted. Leading to some, ah, consideration of the boundaries of revision deletion.... The last edit documented there was May 13, and very little has anything to do with ban evasion, but it's all block evasion. EnergyNeutral was ban evasion, almost totally editing in cold fusion.

How was EnergyNeutral identified? Topic interest. Any new editor who isn't pseudoskeptical in the cold fusion area arouses claims of ban evasion, since the road is littered with knowledgeable banned editors. Has Wikipedia ever considered that it's banning scientists and experts? (Most experts simply stay away, to be sure.)

If Wikipedia were sane, the "ban evasion" and "block evasion" would be considered as to the effect. But WP isn't sane. The early block evasion consisted entirely of self-reverted edits, so there was no necessity for further enforcement. But we all know that they don't think that way. It was when they turned to revision deletion and larger range blocks, making it less convenient to IP sock, that I turned to socking. I wonder. With some socks, I've not been so careful, with some, I very much doubt they could find them. EnergyNeutral was very obvious as a suspect, and I didn't take any care about OS and browser details, so Coren did not have to work hard.

Rdfox 76 suggests a global ban, based on alleged "POV-pushing." That's interesting. WTF is Rdfox 76 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? From the user page, I get the distinct feeling that this guy isn't, er, collaborative. Guns.

Not only can someone be banned on Wikipedia for coming to positive conclusions about cold fusion (which is now a substantial minority position among scientists, possibly a majority opinion among subject matter experts, like the peer reviewers in journals), but we will attempt to make sure that it isn't even studied, as at Wikiversity.

My, my. JzG edits BLP on Brian Josephson. That had been discussed on Talk, and the removal had been suggested by Stanistani, I decided that it was poorly sourced, took it out, and 2over0, normally an editor who'd as soon see me vanished, agreed and praised the removal.

From my supposed POV-pushing, I'd have wanted it mentioned that Brian Josephson is friendly with cold fusion researchers, and, of course, I know it to be a fact, because I know the field and am in close contact with the scientists, including face-to-face contact with some, and, I expect, more coming. I'm having fun, except when I get tempted to look back at Wikipedia.... Someone may notice JzG's restoration of improperly sourced BLP material....

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

And now Raul654, that flatulent luminary (do not strike matches around Raul), chimes in:

You've hit the nail on the head. Given that Abd is already permanently banned from editing the english Wikipedia, and further given his use of Wikiversity to document his disruption of Wikipedia, the topic of discussion here should be if and how to impose a ban on him on all WMF projects. The best venue to do it, I think, would be to work through it with the Office people. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So: it's now "given" that Abd is "permanently banned," and that Wikiversity is being "used" to document the situation -- documenting something is a problem? -- we will have a little discussion with the "Office people." The Office decides on global bans? That's news! I thought they stayed out of this crap!

Last time I talked with "Office people," they were less than thrilled with Raul654, who had been almost single-handedly responsible for the creation of the massive Scibaby sock farm, through his abuse of tools.

What's being suggested to me, by non-Wikipedians, would be, in fact, going above ArbComm, i.e., to Jimbo or the Foundation. So if Raul et al actually do this, I'd have a perfect reason to go there. I've been assuming they'd not be interested. If Raul et al make them interested, well ....

That "documentation" on Wikiversity would show a police riot, where "enforcement" does damage, whereas the standard RBI would cause little or no harm. They really don't understand RBI, do they?

This could actually get interesting.

Oh, crap! MastCell came in with some sanity. Can't win for losing.

Raul654 told a little story about what happened in early 2010. What he didn't mention is that this was part of how some of the Founder tools got removed, when Jimbo got sucked into intervening. Sure, Wikiversity is slow to block and hardly ever "bans," but it does get around to it when it's really needed. That was about Thekohser, and aboout projects where it was possible to assert that "disruption" was being organized, whether or not that was really true. In the end, it all blew over, and Thekohser was unblocked. If you look at that silly page of mine, it documents what has happened with self-reversion in the past, which included work with Thekohser.

The page is only documenting what has already been done, and response, and is not any kind of attack page. (If there is "attack" there, it should be removed! And that page is under a Request for deletion, simply normal process. It's not a battle. If you look at the WV RfD page, you'll see that the prime "clerk" on that page, and most frequent closer, is ... Abd. And I've yet to close a discussion in a way that was reversed. While there is obvious lack of consensus for deletion of this page, even consensus to Keep, I'm not going to close this one for obvious reasons.

The first signs of harassment from WP appeared yesterday, possibly, in some Talk page comments for me and Poetlister. But it's unclear. I got a note from an administrator about it. Believe it or not, all the custodians at Wikiversity are friendly, even when there have been disagreements. It's a very different place, possibly because there are no struggles over scarce "article space." Forks are even encouraged on WV.

Fingers crossed!


This post has been edited by Abd:

[tarantino]

The Office decides on global bans? That's news! I thought they stayed out of this crap!

See this current discussion on foundation-l where various wmf employees weigh in.
Global ban - poetlister?

You'll need to generate much more animosity before people consider you on the same scale as MB.

[The Joy]

The Office decides on global bans? That's news! I thought they stayed out of this crap!

See this current discussion on foundation-l where various wmf employees weigh in.
Global ban - poetlister?

You'll need to generate much more animosity before people consider you on the same scale as MB.

The rights of individual wiki communities versus the rights of the Wikimedia Foundation? Where have seen a similar dispute?

Oh yeah...

(IMG:http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd325/Majorbloodknock/Astek/Diamond/Zed/Z286.jpg)

[radek]

The Office decides on global bans? That's news! I thought they stayed out of this crap!

See this current discussion on foundation-l where various wmf employees weigh in.
Global ban - poetlister?

You'll need to generate much more animosity before people consider you on the same scale as MB.

The rights of individual wiki communities versus the rights of the Wikimedia Foundation? Where have seen a similar dispute?

Oh yeah...

(IMG:http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd325/Majorbloodknock/Astek/Diamond/Zed/Z286.jpg)

If you want to be more optimistic you could go with this

[SB_Johnny]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Abd.

· View this post
· Un-ignore Abd

Meh. If they try to ban him from WV, I'll exhibit interesting behavior. As long as I don't have to read his long and yawn-inducing mindspills. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Ceoil]

Can any threads started by Abd be automatically tar-pited. They were boring a year ago, and still they go on. Jeeeesusssss christ man.

[thekohser]

Can any threads started by Abd be automatically tar-pited. They were boring a year ago, and still they go on. Jeeeesusssss christ man.

Says the guy who's never had enough creativity to start a thread on Wikipedia Review. Charming.

[Ceoil]

Says the guy who's never had enough creativity to start a thread on Wikipedia Review. Charming.

Your confusing creativity for someting else. Mr 'you might remember me as the bitter crank with an axe to grind from such blog comment sections as...'

[Abd]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Abd.

· View this post
· Un-ignore Abd

Meh. If they try to ban him from WV, I'll exhibit interesting behavior. As long as I don't have to read his long and yawn-inducing mindspills. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Hardly anybody is ever required to read anything from me, not even this, whether it be yawn-inducing or not, mindspill or not. However, I'm banned from Wikipedia because of alleged tomes that weren't. They were on-point and sourced discussions of relevant issues. But when there are people who are not actually interested in examining issues but only in maintaining positions, those are, I'm sure, quite irritating.

[Abd]

Meanwhile, that poetlister ban thread on Foundation-l, there is something quite puzzling. Again and again, the offense involved is considered to be "identity theft," but none of the socks pretended to be a "real-world" person, Taxwoman used a photo of a real-world person, not identified as her, that was the extent of it. There was no identity theft; identity theft is a serious crime, but Poetlister did not, at least in what was reported, commit it. He created a persona, and used a handy photograph. That was rude, to that woman, for sure.

But those who are more damagingly rude, through the BLP mess, as well as through what passes for "process," are shocked and outraged. It's implied that the person operating the Poetlister accounts is, for example, guilty of identity theft, and the real-world identity is given, and an outing source is linked that would enable anyone to track the man down.

[Somey]

There was no identity theft; identity theft is a serious crime, but Poetlister did not, at least in what was reported, commit it. He created a persona, and used a handy photograph. That was rude, to that woman, for sure.

He actually went a bit further than that - he used a photograph of a real person and also used that person's real name in one or two places (long-since redacted, I believe). It would be best not to provide details, but the "Poetlister" account itself was the one for which he did that.

There's still some question as to the extent to which this constitutes "identity theft." I believe the compromise point was that while it would fit most people's moral definition of the term, it didn't entirely fit the legal one, at least not to the point where it would be a violation of UK criminal law. However, it might have been, and might still be, grounds for a civil case - if the person in question could demonstrate substantial harm to reputation, etc., and had the resources to pursue it.

It would be a very difficult thing to prove though, since he didn't really flaunt the misappropriation of the person's name. A better case could be made for misappropriation of the photograph, but even then it would be a tough sell to a judge, IMO. Essentially the whole issue is buried at this point, and as long as he doesn't do it again, it seems like they're perfectly OK with having him slum about on the less heavily-trafficked WMF domains like Wikiversity.org and, I would assume, Wikiblowitoutyourass.org - the latter being perhaps the most undeservedly obscure WMF-operated site of all.

[thekohser]

I would call what Poetlister did "wrongful impersonation". The fact that he chose one of his female co-workers to impersonate... especially creepy.

[Abd]

I would call what Poetlister did "wrongful impersonation". The fact that he chose one of his female co-workers to impersonate... especially creepy.

There is a whole habit of polemic where an opponent is impeached by associating the opponent with some rejected category.

"Identity theft" is a fairly common real-world crime. So if we can assert that someone is guilty of identity theft, we can bring to bear a host of already-existing judgments of how Bad this is. Yet what the fellow actually did wasn't identity theft. (Leave out the claimed use of a real name, that's not widely known, if true. And may have simply been Poetlister flopping around, as people do, sometimes, when confronted with an error. It's reprehensible to lie when confronted, but it's also very, very human. The real issue would be a maintained and harmful lie. A quickly abandoned one, piffle! It adds little in import to the original offense.

"Wrongful impersonation" is also a well-known tort. To get an idea, see this New Jersey statute. Basically, wrongful impersonation is identity theft.

It hinges on the use of personally identifying information, falsely representing oneself as someone else (specifically someone, not just some anonymous "other person,"), in order to gain pecuniary benefit or to injure or defraud.

Again, we may consider what the fellow did as "slimy," but I really wonder how the sliminess of this compares to trashing the entire reputation and work of a person based on false testimony, as happens routinely on Wikipedia. Not to mention the problems with BLPs.

As far as I can tell, he did not impersonate someone to injure her in any way. His real offense was sock puppetry, which is not a real-world offense at all, he was creating an alternate persona, and he used an image he obtained to do so. My guess is that he did not expect this to be noticed at all, and connected with the person who had been photographed. He claims, I understand, that someone at Wikipedia stirred this up by notifying the person and/or her boyfriend or whoever he is.

And when did he do this?

Bottom line, for me: he's active at Wikiversity, and, while I don't agree with all the positions he takes, they are well within what is legitimate, and he's doing real work on creating learning resources. How long should he be kept in wiki-purgatory, O Lords of Requital for Past Errors?

Greg is a completely different case. Greg is a serious critic of Wikipedia, and is personally demonstrating flaws in the system, as well as pointing them out. The move to get rid of him is understandable in a completely different way, and itself demonstrates certain flaws in the system. I'm far more like Greg, myself, I'm "unrepentant," that is, I don't regret that I stood up against a "faction of editors" who have seriously damaged the neutrality of the project, and I refused to shut up when ordered to do so. Eventually, that is, I exhausted, to the end, due process, demonstrating, to my own satisfaction, the corruption of the system, and I'm continuing to do that, in a small but persistent way.

Wikipedia has made certain implicit promises to the world, and when it breaks those promises, the rest of us have the right to hold it to account, to show those breakages and expose the causes. It's an extension of what was supposed to be Wikipedia Rule Number One.

The fiction that Wikipedia holds dearly is that "the community" cannot make a mistake. Any sane community will provide for the possibility, will provide mechanisms for finding error and fixing it. The "community" isn't sane, it's either asleep -- most of it -- or dreaming, lost in a fantasy, or, for a few, actively working for private agendas that are in major conflict with the fundamental goals of Wikipedia.

[Abd]

This response to a site ban proposal shows how it's possible to generate, with a brief paragraph of accusations, so many false assertions that a brief summary would be "pack of lies." But each one of the statements has enough basis in fact that some, glancing sideways at evidence, or relying on old impressions, never investigated, could easily agree. So this is pretty long....

If I cared enough, I'd boil it down. I don't. I've already wasted too much time on this. If you don't care, don't read it!

Franamax has now formally proposed a site ban:

Abd (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Abd has been a disruptive presence on this wiki for several years now. This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes (e.g. delegable-proxy, self-reversion whilst blocked/banned, placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes which "you don't have to read" but will be referred to nevertheless as being accepted if not read, maintaining unacceptable pages in userspace on the claim they constitute "evidence" in arbitration cases); a latter fixation on the topic of cold fusion, including promotion of copyright-violating external links and support for other site-banned editors; and sockpuppetry in the support of that same cause. An aggravating factor is Abd's participation at external and sister-project sites where they pursue the same agenda, and COI pursuit of commercial interests in cold fusion.

Abd is currently blocked indefinitely and subject to ArbCom sanctions, however it appears that no formal community discussion has ever taken place on the topic of a ban from this wiki. Thus I propose a community ban for Abd. I have deliberately not included links or diffs in the above, as many editors will be well aware of this history. However if such links are requested, I will try to supply them, and anyone else can feel free to do so also within or immediately below this preamble. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

* Support ban as proposer. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At least he's got some perspective. I'm not allowed to comment in my own site-ban proposal, I haven't even been formally notified of it. However, big deal. If that's the worst thing Wikipedia ever did, piffle. Here's my response:

Attempts to influence project governance. Indeed. Some were, in fact, enthusiastic about the suggestions. There is something wrong with proposing more functional governance?

Delegable proxy would allow the ad-hoc process to remain, while compensating for participation bias. It could be used to create, spontaneously, a Wikipedia Assembly, to make overall decisions through representative democracy that actually represents, fairly, all users. It was only proposed as an experiment, not as anything binding on anyone. And it was viciously opposed. touched a nerve, in 2008. Definitely I can see why they want to get rid of me.

Self-reversion has been proven to be a way in which topic-banned editors may contribute to the topic, without disruption, and even a globally locked user was, through this, allowed to demonstrate useful contributions. Useless contributions by a banned editor are useless to the editor also, so self-reversion encourages cooperation, which these idiots frequently claim is impossible, after all, isn't that why the editor is banned? Sometimes! Not always!

Walls of text inside collapse boxes. "Wall of text" means "something I don't want to read," but the claim that acceptance of arguments was asserted for these collapse boxes must be based on the discussion of lenr-canr.org at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, where I effectively clerked a discussion by collapsing arguments -- not just my own -- into conclusions, so that a complex series of arguments became readable. It's hypertext, and the failure to understand the utility of hypertext is part of why discussions on Wikipedia tend to go nowhere. They become unapproachable. More commonly, I put extended argument and evidence in collapse, and put summary outside. Again, the problem with this is? I've seen administrators do the same thing in an RfC.

Promotion of copyright-violating external links. That's a lie. One time I requested the whitelisting of a link, because the article was already in the bibliography, and it developed that the page was an as-published page, rather than what lenr-canr.org normally hosts, a preprint, so there was an appearance of possible copyvio. (From later conversations, we don't actually know if these are copyvio or not, they merely present more of an appearance of one. Lenr-canr.org does claim it has publisher permission. JzG claims they are lying. Since I know that JzG routinely lies.... and I've never caught the site manager of lenr-canr.org in a lie -- but he may have some inadvertent pages with defective permissions) I immediately withdrew the request for whitelisting that link. All other requested links were whitelisted, and, eventually, after considering the copyvio argument at meta -- that discussion got me banned again on Wikipedia, because the WP admin who looked at it thought it was too wordy --, the whole site was delisted. I have never, to my knowledge, linked to a copyvio. It's been claimed, however, by JzG, and the claim is preposterous. See the current argument at meta, where I cover that claim, with diffs, showing his obvious error. (In a collapse box, because it's actually moot there!) I was actually brief.

Unacceptable pages in user space. One of the user space pages, the response to Verbal, was considered unacceptable by him, and this was debated at RfPP. My position prevailed, and the page was protected to stop vandalism from him. Why does the MfD for these "unacceptable" pages wait until almost two years after the case? All those pages were old, nothing was being currently created. So Franamax wants me banned for what I did two years ago? Hello?

Support for other site-banned editors? What's he talking about? I've supported anyone who is interested in improving the project, and some of these were later banned. I never acted improperly with banned editors. Examples?

Fixation on the topic of cold fusion. Yup. Guilty. So much so that I was happy to be site-banned for three months by ArbComm, because I used the time to start up some real efforts to shift the situation, educationally, instead of wasting time on Wikipedia, struggling with an entrenched faction that doesn't give a fig about policy and guidelines and neutrality, because it knows that it's Right. (That's what they claim about me, big surprise.) And they have the sysop tools and I don't. And the most outrageous violations by them are ignored by ArbComm. Yup. Fixation, replacing a much crazier fixation on Wikipedia.

Sockpuppetry in the support of [cold fusion]. One sock puppet. That's recent, and if the activities of EnergyNeutral (T-C-L-K-R-D) were disruptive, then, sure. Example? EnergyNeutral took a carefully neutral position on cold fusion and the Energy Catalyzer, suggesting reliance on reliable secondary sources instead of the piles of rumors that abounded in the Energy Catalyzer article. And acted for that, and his edits, some of which were reverted by JzG as soon as he saw his chance, were restored, properly. Same with an edit to the article on Brian Josephson. JzG reverted, 2over0 reverted him, because my edit was supporting BLP policy.

Abd's participation at external and sister-project sites. One WMF site. Wikiversity. External site: Wikipedia Review. Franamax is sooo transparent, I am so glad to be blocked! Wikiversity is an academic-oriented educational resource, and I'm dealing with academia now, in real life, I'll be at a conference at MIT this weekend, and I'll likely be publishing something myself within a year, my editing has already appeared in a mainstream journal. I had the educational background to understand cold fusion, I simply hadn't read the recent material, I'd assumed like most people interested in the topic that it was rejected twenty years ago, and properly so. I was wrong. That "evidence has accumulated" now a position found in peer-reviewed reliable sources, no matter what the Wikipediots think. The pseudo-skeptical position simply disappeared in those kinds of sources, but I never tried to put that claim in the article, because there wasn't any secondary peer-reviewed source on it! I did just find, and mentioned in a discussion that JzG fast-archived (it wasn't my discussion, but he did it anyway) on Talk:Cold fusion, an academic source, 2010, major mainstream publisher, the author an expert on nuclear physics, that talks about the bogus rejection. People are going to be surprised, the corner was probably turned somewhere around 2005, looking at publication rates.

COI pursuit of commercial interests in cold fusion. Yes. Declared, and I followed COI policy, before being banned again, which suggests not making controversial edits, but discussing them. The renewed ban request, by JzG, completely ignored that, simply discussing the topic, as having become expert, was considered prohibited. And that's what JzG has done with other experts. And his qualifications? Well, some years ago, he knew a scientist, see ... and his friend told him ....

The commercial interest? I realized that there was important work that had not been replicated, and that this replication could be relatively cheap, and the work was something that could be done by high-school students. So I got the idea to put together kits to do this, making a profit on the price difference between larger and smaller purchases. This is modest profit, to be sure, and I may never make my investment back until I sell the materials (see, it's gold and palladium and platinum, mostly, and they have increased in value,plus heavy water, about the same), but my real interest was in education, and I'm thrilled to be working with kids who want to experience things for themselves, and to do some actually valuable work. Hopefully. These are experiments, and there are piles of things that can go wrong. And that's how we learn.

For me, Wikipedia was an experiment, and I've learned a great deal. About lots of things, though, in fact, my prior understandings did predict more or less what happened. You run the experiments to find out the reality. Sometimes we forget that.

Final comment. Nothing has changed to suggest to me that there is value in cooperating with the "core community," having concluded that ArbComm is effectively corrupt (in spite of some decent members, I found that they were helpless against the tide). Therefore I don't intend to respect blocks or bans, because I answer to a higher authority. That authority does not allow me to damage the project itself (as some suggest, by, say, difficult-to-check vandalism), but it does allow me to make trouble for those who themselves damage the project, though either viciousness or foolishness The justice of the situation is clear to me, and I've offered opportunities for those involved with Wikipedia to negotiate this. They believe, however, that they are firmly in control, that anyone excommunicated is to be shunned, so they are welcome to what their delusions bring them, the waste of their own time.

Given this, a site ban is a reasonable conclusion, eh? The alternative would involve too much head-stretching. The best that can be done at this point, probably, is to encourage WP:RBI and the measure of sanity involved in it. But we know what will be done, given how much intensity is behind the Ban Abd history, they will run into major range blocks and use the edit filter and revision deletion. To stop or hide harmless edits. They will damage the project, and they don't care.

Maybe not revision deletion, but ... the editors who dinged them already for overzealous revision deletion don't seem to get it that if a loophole is left, they will use it, and if nobody is watching....

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Doc glasgow]

Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?

[lilburne]

Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?

You read the first paragraph? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Abd]

Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?

You read the first paragraph? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

You read threads with Abd in the title?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

(edited, to add more comments from the discussion)

Meanwhile, I expect a snow close any minute. One sane voice, never had the pleasure before, turns out, administrator, long-time Wikipedian. The rest, and the general silence from the long-term uninvolved community, which stopped reading the noticeboards ages ago, is why I gave up on Wikipedia. For the half-a-user who might be interested, some comments:

Support Franamax summarizes my feelings quite well as does Badger Drink. My first experience of Abd was at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd_2. I remember the games playing all too well. That he has continued such behaviors on and off Wikipedia for so long only underscores the patience the community is willing to extend its members. It's time for his departure to become permanent. Dlohcierekim 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that RfA. I had only 1400 edits, and got 50% in spite of that. Many users wrote, "come back when you have more edits, I'll support." Times were different then, people actually read some of what I wrote. Many of those supporters retired in disgust. Who is left? People like Dlohcierekim. Patience? Nope. I had patience, and maintained it when every sane friend was telling me it was impossible. I stopped most general editing in 2009, but continued to respect the bans -- facing harassment and increasingly narrow wiki-lawyered enforcement -- until the end of April, when I finally did appeal the renewed cold fusion topic ban, to ArbComm, realizing that I'd never taken that final due-process step. When they rejected it without consideration, then I knew, for a certainty. Natural consequence, the end of respect and cooperation with this faux "community."

Support Some people know they are right, and a ban is the best way for the rest of us to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a common theme. I don't know that I'm right, though I had, for ages, an illusion that to take a stand it had to be right, so I'd try to prove my stand with evidence and argument. Johnuniq, on the other hand, seems quite sure that he's right in his judgment, and that the "community," meaning the narrow slice that participates in process like this, is always right. For a good example of this "right" thing, see JzG's latest comment at meta. Indeed, see his last three edits there. JzG made an evidence-free blacklisting request, echoing what he'd done over two years before, that ArbComm trout-slapped him for. I dismantled it, with evidence, and asked for anyone to supply contrary evidence. None was supplied. JzG signs off with

Wrong answer, but I have given up all hope of you ever accepting anyone's interpretation of anything other than your own. JzG 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

JzG is certain I'm wrong, and believes his mere assertion is enough. He has just as much right to take that stand as do I to take mine. However, the point at that page is not his opinion or my opinion, but the judgment of a neutral administrator, isn't it? JzG lost these discussions when I or someone like me would dismantle his bullshit, that's precisely why he wanted me and others disappeared.

Now, who is blocked, soon banned, and who is still an administrator, even though all this is totally obvious to anyone who reads evidence? Which group do I prefer to be in, the "accepted" or the "rejected," given who is in the accepted group?

Am I right? What does that matter? What matters to me is the stands I take. And Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence. Instead, the editors left think it's about who is right. It's part of the core problem.

Support - Advocating COI material and blatant ignorance of anti-socking policy is inexcusable...and that guy had the nerve to seek adminship? No. and I tend to agree with those who correctly state that he is using Wikiversity to refight old vendettas, sound like beating dead horses.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

COI editors are expected to advocate, that's why there are restrictions on them. If I violated COI policy, with what edit? I'm not "ignorant" of anti-socking policy, I've deliberately broken it, because of IAR, as have many others before me. And the Wikiversity claim is evidence-free, and simply not true. I'm using a couple of pages in user space on WV to document my Wikipedia activity and community response, with, so far, the support of the community, and those pages don't violate any WMF policy, and nothing is being "fought" there. Vendetta? Against whom? The user obviously hasn't read the pages, or is jumping to conclusions. That's a WMF wiki, and if there is anything improper there, any user with an SUL can immediately edit them or comment on them. I've taken a strong stand, in fact, against the abuse of Wikiversity to pursue vendettas.

* Oppose in principle. Let the ArbComm do what it's supposed to do. This "community ban" process is like a high-school clique ganging up on a classmate. The classmate may have even deserved it, but it doesn't make the whole process any less disgusting. Lack of effective ArbComm enforcement is no excuse.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 13:51 (UTC)

I think this is a matter the community can handle. Dlohcierekim 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, dear Sir. I didn't realize this thread is strictly for the members of the clique "community" who cast only the "support" votes... But it seems to be more than three of y'all, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 14:01 (UTC)

I thought, who is this guy, when did he register, and does he realize that he's risking his wiki-life? So ... Ezhiki (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Admin since 2004. 96,000 edits, large bulk in article and article talk space. Very low editing of Wikipedia namespace. No blocks ever. I'd guess he knows about nothing of the history here, he's just noticing the obvious from the discussion.

No surprise, they will get their ban, I expect, who would decide otherwise, looking at those votes? Would they bother to check involvement? In this case, it wouldn't make a difference, even though many users are highly involved in prior conflict where I became an issue. It used to be that there would be many more comments from people like Ezhiki. They are becoming rare, and the surprising thing here is that Ezhiki even noticed this discussion. Sane editors, even if they found they could continue work in their specific areas of interest, mostly stopped watching the noticeboards, way too much traffic. So you get a highly biased sample there. The point Ezhiki is making is that a noticeboard is no way to determine bans, and he understands why.

# support, shown that they are not going to be constructive, by the socking and documenting it on wikiversity ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Support with the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Long overdue. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The wikiversity documentation doesn't make the argument, but later analysis will, that what is shown is socking with constructive edits, the first part being self-reverted in cooperation with the ban, which was only abandoned when enforcement escalated beyond RBI. (Self-reversion means that no revert is needed, and blocking is optional, then. Long story.)

Atmoz was a GW cabal supporter, as I recall, but not extreme. The rest of the cabal would not want to mention the standard offer. The problem with WP:SO is that it assumes that the prior behavior was harmful, or, alternatively, that the user agrees to abstain from it anyway. Since I respected the bans, to the best of my ability, according to stated and understood limits, for almost two years, and found that I was increasingly restricted, and there was no protection offered by ArbComm, enforcement was entirely one-sided, I cannot expect that things would be any different six months from now.

It should be realized that I was topic-banned by an admin, I claimed recusal failure, and when the admin insisted, I did not violate this ban, rather I appealed it to ArbComm, which ultimately confirmed my position and desysopped. And then ArbComm, in a singularly evidence-free and abrupt decision (practically reversing the initial apparent likely decisions), created two bans for me, the MYOB ban (never explained, and obviously a political compromise sweetened with a mentorship provision -- which was later made ineffective, with Fritzpoll, an arb, volunteering to be mentor and being told it was not allowed) and the Cold fusion ban. The ArbComm majority clearly wanted to Get Rid of Abd, but made it look legitimate. I made the point at the time that sanctioning an editor who appeals an abusive ban is chilling, that such sanctions should be based on a separate case, and there are very sound legal principles involved in that. Newyorkbrad wasn't any help.... even though he made some noises about how tragic the whole thing was, "Why can't Abd just edit some non-controversial articles?"

Well, because controversial articles happen to be ones I considered might be worth my time and research skills. Because non-controversial articles don't need me and my expertise. I was dedicated to neutrality, reached by following consensus process that considers all views. That requires discussion. And the core detests discussion, it's too much work for them, though they are not required to read it, except when they multiply revert, maybe. They imagine that with a complex subject, any editor can, unassisted, judge neutrality, a total illusion.

Support Seems necessary here due to many past editing problems noted by various editors above. Captain panda 17:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This demonstrates the problem with noticeboard bans. Captain panda doesn't look at any evidence other than the numbers of editors "noting problems," and then, adding nothing, increases the number. That's what happened at ArbComm, the cabal which I'd identified as "mutually involved" -- it was later, in the Climate Change arbitration called a "clique" by Lar -- was about two dozen editors, who piled in noting "problems." ArbComm took one look at that and simply assumed that if anyone had 24 editors yelling at him, he is a problem. Yes. He's a problem for them. For the community and the project? They'd have to look at the evidence, and that was way, way too much work. Giant panda doesn't even consider any evidence, but adds his name to the list of supporters. That's how it works and how neutral editors come to support a highly biased action.

In theory, a closer would look at an evidence-free proposal like this, and discount not only editors who have prior involvement, but also evidence-free !votes, and would, here, end up with ... nothing. No consensus. But that doesn't happen with these kinds of numbers.

I've even seen an admin comment in a discussion that there was inadequate evidence, asking for it, presumably intending to come back later. The evidence requested was not provided, and it was later judged that the discussion -- which had never even been closed -- had established a ban, with no contrary opinion being expressed. Basically, people simply voted on immediate impressions, assuming that what they were being told was true. They forgot to apply AGF in both directions! And, as it turned out, they had been lied to. (This was the Wilhelmina Will topic ban, later overturned with my help, and while I was blocked for my intervention, my first block, with the help of GoRight. Fritzpoll, whom I'd supposedly attacked, later wrote that it was all a misunderstanding, and we became good wikifriends. He actually ran for ArbComm, and won, inspired by my work. Then he saw it was impossible, that the majority was intransigent, I think, and he retired.)

Here, after all, JzG and Raul654, etc., are administrators. What they say must be reliable, right? Or else wouldn't they have lost their bits long ago?
This is how the wiki goes.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Gruntled]

Is it just me, or does ANYONE read an Abd post after the first paragraph?

Abd manages to put something worth reading in nearly all his posts. That's more than quite a few people round here can say. (*cough* Scottish medical practitioner? *cough*)