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*)

[Zoloft]

I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.

[Abd]

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*)

Not only that, Abd collapses the quotes, removing extra space, so that his short posts don't take up a full screen. I just put that in so that this one might be worth reading also. Thanks, Gruntled.

[Abd]

I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.

Thanks, Zoloft. I write for today's outliers, generally. Not for everyone, and especially not for those who imagine that their own narrowness and incapacity is how everyone is.

Besides, I don't read most of what's posted on WR, only that which interests me or snags my eye, and I often just scan, rather than reading with great care. I wonder what would happen if I responded to all the posts that I don't read with "I didn't read this." But "too long" would never be a reason, the reason would be that what I saw didn't catch my attention, which has not much to do with length, and more to do with the first paragraph or what stands out to the eye.

[thekohser]

...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...

I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.

[Zoloft]

...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...

I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.

Another good reason is that it's 'rule by whoever shows up.'

[Abd]

...Wikipedia process, to be functional, requires people to take stands, openly and in good faith, with argument and evidence...

I think you've hit upon the reason why Wikipedia process is dysfunctional.

Thanks, Greg. Of course, I hit on this in 2007, having predicted the phenomena years before, and have been trying to explain it and to show ways around it since then. You can see in the current ban discussion that some are still impressed by that. "Outsider trying to tell us about Wikipedia problems."

Another good reason is that it's 'rule by whoever shows up.'

Of course, that's just a restatement. The adhocracy is not the problem in itself, it works well usually. It's the lack of efficient and careful process (it has to be both efficient and careful) for dealing with where the adhocracy doesn't work, because of participation bias.

The reason why better process wasn't set up was the supermajority election method used to award adminship (highly subject to participation bias as well) and to elect ArbComm. ArbComm is elected by "Plurality at large," which, as a multiwinner method, is one of the worst, because, if we think in terms of factions (an oversimplification, to be sure, but still useful for thought), the largest faction will win all the seats. If there is a minority faction which is strongly opposed by others, it can't win *any* seats, meaning that its arguments will be completely unrepresented. Gradually, this snuffs out independent thinking, and it's devastating to expert participation, for experts in any field are outliers in the general population.

[Abd]

# Oppose, totally in agreement with Ëzhiki -- this is a disgusting spectacle. The accused "attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes." Was that lifted from a political "trial" in Maoist China? Go, team! Writegeist (talk)
# Oppose Not only for my basic belief that draconian solutions do not work, but for the idea that somehow not giving any diffs makes a case of some sort. I also regard participation in external sites to be an invalid rationale for such a ban. Lastly, "unpopularity contests" form an exceedingly bad means of governance for any organization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! At least someone is saying it!

The practical difference between an indef block, user page access not allowed, and a site ban is practically zero. JzG simply wanted to rub it in as deeply as he could, as quickly as he could, and he's got plenty of enablers, always has had them.

That a user can be site-banned with an evidence-free proposal is a symptom of a deep problem. JzG's done it many times, and if ArbComm were awake, they'd notice this. I tried. They didn't want to know. They think it's about me.

[Abd]

related: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Abd_user_pages, arbitrator comment:

Comment The arbitration committee has been privately notified of this discussion and we're not aware of any reason why these pages need to be kept for arbitration purposes.
Speaking only for myself regarding these arbitration evidence pages in userspace, the 2010 committee wrote a principle on similar user subpages in cases Race and intelligence and Climate change, and the 2011 committee incorporated a similar remedy into Longevity. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Guidance for future editors: if you submit evidence to ArbComm with user space pages, they can, and very possibly will, be later deleted, meaning that the basis and context for the case decision can disappear. I generally used user pages, but sometimes used, instead, reference to history, which can't so easily be deleted. Essentially, the position John takes is based on a technicality: the use of user space for extended evidence instead of ArbComm space or history.

I did notify the committee by email, very briefly. It's clear that John, at least, does not consider transparency of ArbComm decision-making to be "any reason." Solely for making decisions, perhaps, on a matter that they assume they will never revisit -- or they can all see deleted pages -- sure. They don't need to be kept for "arbitration purposes." They need to be kept for transparency, and they don't want transparency, so the position isn't surprising.

At least one of these pages was explicitly mentioned in the rationale for sanctions, I pointed to that. They don't care, confirming my view of ArbComm. There used to be arbitrators who did care, but .... Wikipedia is sliding inexorably into the shit, like a bad toilet dream.

I don't need these files, I have copies of all of them, and the proposed deletion (likely to succeed except for a few files that have been rescued) simply is one more demonstration of what Wikipedia is about.

Here is one of the findings that Vandenberg cites, case Race and intelligence :

Lengthy evidence and sub-pages

9) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These pages were explicitly linked from my case evidence page: I was facing evidence from a pile of editors, with laundry lists of claims, and responding directly on that page would have made my evidence page totally cumbersome. These pages were all announced there, so the argument about other editors not knowing about them would not apply. In addition, only one editor had complained about the page responding to him, and that page had, indeed, been courtesy-blanked, by me. This finding does not indicate deletion, merely mentions it as a possibility, presumably for pages not actually used, and it wasn't mentioned in the finding that whether or not the page was actually used was even relevant. Vandenberg ignored the page where I stated my post-arbitration intentions, which was then used as an excuse to throw the book at me. (Those stated intentions assumed a mentor, by the way, who would have had to permit anything possibly contentious. What was beyond the pale was that I might even ask.)

They really don't like editors who are thorough and who actually respond to charges, in detail, with evidence. It creates too much work for them, and they never paid any attention to suggestions about how they could easily handle the load, real arbitration clerks, appointed by and responsible to each arbitrator. Structure, the kind of structure that any real-world organization develops naturally to handle the work load. Instead, arbitrators are overwhelmed, but they like it that way, or somebody does.

I'd expect some of the arbitrators, sitting at the time of the case, to actually want this evidence deleted, because it could be used to demonstrate their functional incompetence, should someone care to do that. In that case, RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, the drafting arbitrator came up with what seemed to me to be an excellent decision (I was happy with it, even if I disagreed with this or that.) He'd actually read the evidence, I think. Then this was abruptly shoved aside by an arbitrator who obviously Didn't Like It, and the whole tenor of the case shifted to Abd Bad.

This would represent, I believe, arbitrators who were frustrated by the volume of evidence I'd presented, even though there was at least as much evidence presented against me. They wanted to take a short-cut, a common one, and you can see this in the behavior of editors at the AN ban discussion: judge by the number of editors presenting evidence or argument or just opinion, in a certain direction. It's a short-cut that actually works, a lot of the time. But when it fails, it can be a doozy. In particular, this is highly vulnerable to factions, which is what I claimed in the RfAr, to the derision of the cabal I was identifying. That same cabal was later identified, in rough outlines, in the Climate Change arbitration.

This was one of the frustrating aspects of that RfAr for me. I'd explicitly stated that I was not claiming improper collusion, that "cabal," as I used the term, meant informal collaboration, common interest and mutual involvement. So that if A and B are in a conflict, if B and C are "cabal members," frequently backing each other up, C's action blocking A is not cleanly uninvolved. I didn't ask for any sanctions based on this, it would have been unfair, like an ex-post-facto law. But I was still dinged by ArbComm for making the cabal claim without proving improper collusion! All I was doing was pointing to the fact that the editors piling in, in this case, were involved in a host of prior decisions, documented, all on one side. Which happened to be a side contrary to ArbComm's prior decisions....

They simply ignored my disclaimer, and decided based on prior impressions, apparently.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[SB_Johnny]

I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.

I can only read 2300 WPM, so I just read the parts other people happen to quote. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Peter Damian]

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

Wikipedians don't read, or if they do, rarely beyond the first paragraph ('lede').

[Abd]

I read Abd's posts, but then again I read at 2400 wpm, so you may want to put me on the chart as an outlier.

I can only read 2300 WPM, so I just read the parts other people happen to quote. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I knew there must be some reason. By the way, that process, depending on others to filter what one reads, is perfectly sensible. You'll miss some stuff, sure, but it's efficient. You pay your money and take your choice.

[Abd]

Geez, I'm on a roll:

Oppose I wasn't going to vote, but I was just sitting here watching the ridiculous support reasons pile up and decided enough was enough. Dlohcierekim bogus support reason and then the inappropriate response to Ezhiki was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I still don't comprehend how referencing an RfA that ended with nearly 50% support is somehow a negative thing toward Abd. Unbelievable. Silverseren 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There was canvassing in that RfA by a tendentious editor I'd identified and confronted -- later indeffed --, who was blocked during it for that reason. If you discount the canvassed !votes by clueless users who had been selected for likely opposition, it comes out almost exactly at 50%.

But, Silverseren, surely you comprehend how it's a "negative thing." It was because I was suggesting changes or modifications to systems, and because I was openly revealing myself, instead of putting up pretense, which is what the community expects in an RfA. Some could tell that I was not drinking the Kool-Aid, that I didn't want to be an administrator, I was merely willing to serve, because I'd been nominated, and that's exactly what they fear. Others, at that time, liked this about me!

# Oppose, per Collect; the lack of diffs in the discussion of a community ban for an editor who contributed mostly productively since February 2005 is off-putting, and two of the rationales for a community ban ("placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes" and participation on external sites) seem invalid reasons for a community ban. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Oppose per Ëzhiki; this is indeed an unsavoury spectacle. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, okay, Wikipedia is not entirely dead. It's no longer quite so obvious how this will close. When I've considered closes, I always considered the later votes more than previous, because they reflect the earlier arguments and have had more time to read evidence and do independent investigation. Firsfron seems to actually have looked at my contributions. Heresy! And thanks, Malleus.

I do not take these comments as indicating I should hope for unblocking, nor as support for any possibly disruptive action. They simply show that there is some sense remaining in the community, and if RBI were followed, there would be paths open to and encouraging cooperation with anyone.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Silver seren]

Two more now, so yes, you're on a "roll".

[Abd]

Two more now, so yes, you're on a "roll".

I'll admit to being surprised. One support, okay, two or three, not really expected, but now the first plus seven in a row?

What is being expressed by this string of editors is generally the position of long-term Wikipedians, people like JzG and Raul654 are outliers in that group.

And then Enric Naval shows up. I was wondering when he would.

* Support Please note that Abd POV-pushed in Cold fusion until he was banned, flooding the talk page with walls of text and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. That was his almost only activity in wikipedia during the last 2 years. Then he attempted several times to game his topic ban from cold fusion. Arbcom also banned him from entering disputes from where he was not one of the originators of the dispute here, due to he troubles he causes, and he also tried to game that. If you agree with him, then he is a reasonable editor. But, if you disagree with him, then he winds up insulting you, hand-waving away all arguments that you present, and flooding you with walls of text where one a couple of sentences are relevant to the question you asked. I'm tired of showing him a dozen of RS only to have him discarding all of them because they don't fit his personal opinion.

This is not a diff-less unfair ban of a poor innocent editor, this is the ban of a guy who has been wasting the time and patience of many editors with his relentless POV pushing. I already looked for dozens of diffs in the arb case. Anyways, in the last comments of Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_39#Banned_user he repeats the same behaviours: he hand waves all the sources and policies that I present to him, and at the end he insists again in making a biased POV-pushing edit to misrepresent the mainstream opinion of scientists. In other words, he is still pulling the same POV-pushing that he was pushing before being topic banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what Naval is talking about: I was behaving as a COI editor. The cold fusion article is based largely on relatively weak sources, as to anything in the last ten years. He'd present a dozen diffs from weak sources, they are RS indeed, but he was using them in opposition to -- and to the exclusion of -- recent peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream scientific journals. And he's completely missed the point. I wasn't editing the article in any contentious way, because of COI. Essentially, Enric doesn't want a contrary point of view to his own presented even on the Talk page. And he's been behind many of the topic bans. He thinks that what matters is whether or not I "discard" his sources. No, what matters, for the article, is the consensus of editors. "He insists again in making a biased POV-pushing edit to misrepresent the mainstream opinion of scientists." He has no example to show, as to anything with the article. Bottom line, his complaint is that I disagreed with him on the Talk page, while attempting to find consensus -- read the discussion! -- and that discussion uncovered a source that I'd been unaware of, very striking and very recent: Cook (2010). I recommend that anyone interested in what actually happened take a look at the discussion Enric cites. It shows his approach, very clearly, and it also shows how JzG, fast-archiving this discussion, misrepresented it, presenting it under a misleading collapse title. I didn't start that discussion.

The most recent behavior, as EnergyNeutral, I was cooperating with a Nobel laureate in physics, as well as all the editors of all the articles involved, and I know and am respected by real scientists. I have expressed the view that the scientific consensus is in movement on cold fusion, that it "turned the corner" sometime around 2005, but that's a (highly) informed opinion, you could call it original research. Experts have opinions like this, and, given my physics background, two years of intensive study does make me, to a degree, an expert. Two years ago, Enric Naval, in spite of contentiously editing Cold fusion for years, literally did not know a molecule from a nucleon, and when he was corrected, was pissed.

It's probably still true -- how could we tell? -- that "most scientists" still think that cold fusion is totally bogus. However, that's not what's been appearing in the journals! I never tried to put this in the article, the most I've ever done was to modify language that implies what the scientific consensus is today, based on what was written more than a decade ago, by using accurate tense and attribution. And we do have more recent sources, they simply reject them.

The behavior as Abd before the reinstatement of the topic ban last year, was fully compliant with COI guidelines, which require that a COI editor discuss issues on Talk, advising editors. The same people (JzG has been the ringleader) banned PCarbonn, who was doing the same. They never mentioned that all this "insistence" was simply pointing to sources on the Talk page, and explaining what they mean. (PCarbonn also became employed in the field during his one-year ArbComm topic ban, instigated by ... JzG. The ban then became a "community ban" as requested by .... JzG, and he even proposed the POV of PCarbonn as being the cause of the original ban -- which was a lie. ArbComm doesn't ban for POV, or at least didn't.)

These editors have used the common opinion about cold fusion to create an appearance of "fringe POV pushing." In fact, they are very determined POV pushers, and it's been obvious for a long time. They hold firmly to their POV, in spite of what's in the actual sources, and they follow this in their editing of the article, and they reject anyone who disagrees, and when they lose an argument by consensus, they simply bring it back later. What they claimed about me is far, far more true of them.

ArbComm placed Cold fusion under General Sanctions, but all enforcement has been aimed at me, none at what at least some arbitrators seemed to recognize, then, as problematic behavior by others, which would certainly include JzG and Enric Naval. ArbComm depends on knowledgeable editors to enforce its decisions, but it banned and allowed the further ban of the most knowledgeable editors, the ones who knew both the field and Wikipedia process and policies, and who actually followed these.

The results of this experiment were predictable.

[Milton Roe]

And then Enric Naval shows up. I was wondering when he would.

Stop Naval-gazing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Do you want to go blind? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Silver seren]

But the navel is one of the best parts to lick. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Abd]

Something very unexpected happened today. I'd been watching the AN ban request and the MfD for my user pages, and it was all as might have been expected, based on the past two years. And then sensible users poured in to AN, and users started to rescue my essays and working pages, etc., at the MfD, with suggestions being made to move the RfAr evidence pages to arbcomm space, as should have been done long ago.

I don't know what will happen -- more Wikipediots have started commenting --, but it made me cry. Thanks, folks.

(I don't take the AN ban comments opposing ban as personal support, many of the comments seem to accept the claim of problem editing or whatever, rather it simply represents some common sense. But for people to express that there might be some value to the essays, etc., that affects me profoundly, after being so rejected for so long. I need to move on with my life, but I'll continue to work, I believe, at Wikiversity, and, in my view, Wikiversity could end up being the rescuer of Wikipedia, because consensus can actually be sought there, and, hopefully, I can help set up real consensus process in that environment. It's not a slam-dunk, by any means, but still possible.)

(I'm not the only one to think this possible for Wikiversity. The relationship of Wikiversity to Wikipedia could be like the relationship of academia to an encyclopedia. While Wikiversity is not "academia," because it's still a wiki, it has policies and practices that are inclusive, so expert opinion is valued and not crushed. So far. There are tendencies there as well as everywhere, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty....)

[Milton Roe]

But the navel is one of the best parts to lick. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Not if you can't reach it. On Planet Wikipedia in the Self-Absorption Galaxy, they are too inflexible to accomplish it. Which is surprising, because the inhabitants are pretty spineless.

[Abd]

Once upon a time, Enric Naval started a community ban discussion of me from cold fusion. When I saw the cabal pile in, I knew that consensus against a ban was impossible, and I also knew that if I asked my supporters to stop, a neutral admin would settle on a one-month ban, which was not a problem. So I did, and asked for a neutral close, and got it. Then I asked the closer to confirm the ban duration, he did, as one month, and they screamed.... The matter went to ArbComm later when WMC still insisted he could unilaterally ban me, after the month expired.

In this case, whether there is a ban or not is, AFAIK, completely moot. It will have no effect on my editing, compared to an indef block. Some seem to think that if there is a ban, there will be more freedom to revert my edits. Since they were already reverting everything, including restoring a BLP violation, with no inhibition, since they were already using revision deletion, what are they looking for? Permission to drop a nuke on Western Massachusetts?

New arguments keep coming in that just plain leave me puzzled. But first, an older one.

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)

I.e., the rest of us don't know we are right? Unlike them? If someone is right and knows it, does this disqualify them from editing Wikipedia. And how do they know what I know? I don't know I'm right, I think that "right" is a story, an interpretation, not a fact, and doesn't belong to the realm of knowledge. Rather, I take stands, present evidence and arguments, and expect others to do the same. And they certainly do! Except some just say "You're wrong."

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)

Geez, Louise, I didn't seek adminship at all, I was nominated and accepted. That was way, way before I had a clue about cold fusion. And once I became COI, I followed COI restrictions rigorously. Eaglestorm demonstrates the obtuse misunderstanding underneath much Wikipedia drama: COI editors are *expected* to advocate, that's why they are prohibited from controversial editing of articles under COI, but they are *asked* to advise on the Talk page. And that's what I was topic banned for, by this brilliant "community," led by JzG. At what point is anyone going to notice that almost every disruptive process around cold fusion has been started by JzG? Ban this one, ban that one, delete these files, delete those, blacklist and revert war. They strain at a gnat and swallow horseflies.

But is he around now? I could name several administrators whose modus operandi is to lie low for a while and then creep back when the flak has cleared. In what way is this case different? Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Abd's WV page, June 3, which is pretty close to now. That is a unified account, so within the limits of MW software, it is the same person. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am registering accounts from various locations, just in case, perhaps making a few edits, normal and harmless ones at worst. These are laid up in store because of the history of range blocking. None of this would be necessary if normal RBI were followed, but I don't expect the logic of this to dawn on them. None of these will ever be used to actually damage the project. The last edit documented on the Wikiversity page was May 31, not June 3. Franamax is confused. I am not disclosing the Sekrit accounts, for obvious reasons, at this time. However, the whole Wikipedia obsession with socking is crazy, and demonstrating the insanity is part of my agenda. There are deep contradictions within the Kool-Aid that these people drink. Those contradictions eventually make people sick.

(Self-reversion was designed for an RBI environment, where further sanctions would be applied to an editor only if they made it necessary, and normal self-reverted edits are just suggestions and do no harm. But the Kool-Aid drinkers think of a ban as punishment and that "justice must be done," and "the community must be respected," as they proceed to ban it, one editor at a time, and where, part of what's being demonstrated, POV is banned (look at the bans JzG proposed!). I'm a strong believer in respecting consensus, which is why I took two years to conclude that this "community" wasn't a real community, that respecting its ad-hoc process was insane, and it was time to take a stand, instead of attempting to respect ever-tightening bans and restrictions, based on ... misinterpretations is a kind word.)

He's providing blow-by-blow commentary on this thread on Wikipedia Review so I don't think he can be fairly described as inactive. If he has another sock which we haven't spotted then he could be editing right now. Hut 8.5 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inactive on Wikipedia, but it's moot. I was recently active, May 31. The real issue, raised by a few sane editors, would be the function of the ban request. It was raised by JzG, who was, many times, advised by ArbComm to lay off Abd. JzG is Bad News, but when someone raises the cry, they look where that person is pointing, not at the one pointing. Unless it was me, when I pointed out that WMC was violating recusal policy, well, he was their friend, so then they looked at me. But I hadn't asked for anyone to be banned, ever. They do it *frequently*, and I fully expect that some other editor is going to be accused of being an Abd sock. Look at this doozie. Want to know who caused the whole cold fusion flap that led WMC to topic-ban me? Hipocrite. Hipocrite was obviously a bad hand sock of someone, and J.delanoy knew who, and kept it quiet. (It's unlikely that Objectivist, V, is a sock -- naive and rather helpless -- and the person I'd suspect, who is indeed from Belgium, I think, is topic banned (community ban, JzG stirred it up), that editor explicitly refused help from me years ago, I very much doubt he'd sock -- and I doubt that J.delanoy would have concealed it. Hipocrite was a cabal supporter who went to cold fusion to stir up cause for Abd to be banned, that became obvious. They didn't care about cold fusion, they cared about the global warming agenda, and I'd dinged their limo. Somebody involved was heavily socking, that's clear.

Support This isn't a case of one sock: it's chronic editing through IP accounts, practicing block evasion on Wikipedia as a "research project". —Kww(talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Chronic editing" by IP was from the time of the block, April 30, until May 13. Two weeks. Yes, there is a research project, more accurately a demonstration project, investigation of community response to block evasion when the evasion isn't otherwise disruptive. You could also call it civil disobedience, ignoring unjust orders. As is common with civil disobedience, I'm not surprised when sanctioned for it, and don't blame the "officers" who "arrest me," but I do expect them to refrain from excessive force and the causing of harm.

Support a community ban per Enric Naval's links. Community members - especially certain arbitrators - who have abetted Abd's years of obnoxious filibustering need to reconsider the effect their refusal to sanction disruptive behavior has on the editors who actually have to deal with said disruption, and on article content. To those who are claiming that there has been only one sock, Abd has engaged in extensive IP editing before and after his block. Skinwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He's confused. No IP editing by me before being blocked. There are many others who IP edit Cold fusion. My only influence on article content has been where consensus crystallized around a suggestion of mine, which was rare at cold fusion, because there has been a set of POV-pushing editors sitting on that article for years, long before I was involved. Before he was finally site-banned, ScienceApologist heavily edited that article, without any restraint. He was seriously disruptive for years, and his editing was only transiently opposed by me, and only on the Talk page. He renamed his account Joshua P. Schroeder, his real name, apparently, then to VanishedUser314159 (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look at the history of Cold fusion. Heavy POV-pusher. You can't find any behavior of mine that comes close to matching it. Try to find a bad edit to Cold fusion from me, in the short period between the expiration of my ArbComm ban and the new one that JzG prompted. What they point to is discussion, by an expert, now highly knowledgeable. CF is complex, it's a twenty-year-long scientific controversy, of a phenomenon that was extremely difficult to set up, that was rejected on theoretical grounds by those who did not ever demonstrate that the core finding of the original research, unexpected heat, was error. As the most recent review in a major mainstream scientific journal points out, though, evidence accumulated..... From the identified and measured product, and the ratio of energy release to product, it's fusion, all right, but the mechanism is still unknown. That's a big threat to those who believe we know everything.

If it were up to me, I'd put the claim in the article, attributed to the author, because it is obviously still controversial, even though no opposing reviews have appeared in the more than 8 months since it was published.

Support. I see no substantial difference between "many socks" and "one sock and many IPs". The claim that "it's only one sock" is plainly untrue, as Abd himself helpfully documented in Kww's link above. The standard justification for a community ban for a user in the present situation is that reverts of their edits made in violation of the ban will be exempt from xRR rules, which do appear to be needed given the persistent evasion. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This would only be true, maybe, if there had been sock revert warring over reversion of evading edits. That hasn't happened. This community ban will just give them more cover for what they were already doing. From past experience, then, if someone sees an edit of mine, checks it and reverts it back in, they will then call the person a "meat puppet" for a "banned editor." They do that anyway, even when editors aren't banned but only blocked. "Banned" just sounds more solid.

Support As a community member as and custodian at Wikiversity as well as a wikipedian. Abd's "experiment" on the wikipedia community causes disruption here, has been attracting vandals at WV. He is damaging both communities, and severing the cord completely seems the most likely way to get him to move on. In his Wikipedia Review posts about EnergyNeutral being blocked, Abd states that none of his other socks have been blocked. (The posting makes it sound as if the others are avoiding Cold Fusion). He finds playing whack-a-mole "soooo much fun". But most importantly, he literally delights in the collateral damage attempts to block him cause innocent editors because it proves he is right. Thenub314 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There were two short edits, not vandalism, but provocative, perhaps, by a user apparently more interested in Poetlister than me, but one of the edits was to my Talk page. This may be related to certain discussions here, but really is completely moot to the question of my ban from Wikipedia. Yes, I had some fun, but I did not delight in collateral damage, and took steps to correct it, which were very much not respected. The ones who don't care about collateral damage are the enforcing administrators who create massive range blocks to stop harmless editing and stupid edit filters that trap one of the most common Muslim names. And they have been doing this kind of thing fora long time, I didn't cause them to invent it.

Support Manifesto on his talk page is antithetic to the concepts of Wikipedia. --WGFinley (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF is he talking about?

Support Yes, its high time. Abd is wasting the time of other users and we need to make our disapproval explicit. I'm astonished by how many people find his behaviour acceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start the ban discussion, JzG did. What ever happened to RBI? Who is "we," in "our disapproval"? I know that Spartaz disapproves, he expressed that long ago, when I confronted his cabal friends. In any extensive discussion, at that time, as in RfC/JzG 3, I could count on it being about 2/3 Ban Abd, even though the RfC was based on open-and-shut evidence. They don't like that kind of evidence when they don't like the conclusion, so they blame the messenger.

Yes, indeed. Abd has made clear his intention to subvert this encyclopedia. In early 2010 Abd and GoRight wasted time on arbitration noticeboards in attempts to have GoRight act as Abd's official mentor (e.g. see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Abd, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Abd). With Abd's very recent sockpuppet account EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked a week ago by Coren,[3] walls of text continuing elsewhere and Lomax cold fusion kits now advertised on the web, there is no evidence that Abd is "down". Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Mathsci. Mathsci just put more energy into the GoRight mentorship proposal than the original proposal involved. (The real proposed mentor was Fritzpoll, told in 2009 that it wasn't needed, by an arbitrator, and then, when he was an arb, told that arbs could not mentor, even though Fritzpoll was already recusing on everything Abd.) EnergyNeutral was not a "wall of text" editor, that's just habitual accusation. There is something wrong with offering kits to make it cheap and easy, relatively speaking, to verify research published by the U.S. Navy? I declared the COI, after all, and followed those rules.

Comment I don't remember why I don't like him. But I will still hold my pitchfork high based on the AA stuff that used to be on his user page. Rabble rabble. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great comment. But AA stuff? What's he talking about? Okay, I looked. Here, removed in 2009.

[Abd]

* Oppose. If Abd is ignoring sanctions descended from ArbCom remedies, then ArbCom can ban him directly, without all this drama. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

* Abd's ban was reinstated via discretionary sanctions, then upheld in ANI here, he then appealed to Arbcom, and Arbcom saw no reason to lift the ban here. Arbcom doesn't intervene in cases where the community can already handle itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is some technical error here, but Enric is generally correct. The problem is not whether or not the community can "handle itself," the problem is that it can, and does, in ways that are evidence-free and without necessity. The technical error is that JzG began the community topic ban discussion, the admin who later closed it commented in it, then closed with a ban, so the ban reinstatement did not come first, the AN discussion (not ANI) came first. The ban involved is the topic ban from cold fusion, not a site ban. There was no site ban, obviously, even though a number of editors claimed there was. There was only an indef block, and that block had not been appealed. There is a theory under which the block and bans were not evaded (originally, this was the "self-reversion" period), but I fully recognize that this theory hasn't been accepted.

The wording "ArbComm saw no reason to lift the ban" is technically correct, but it implies that they looked at the reasons. There is no sign that they did, the rejection of the request completely ignored the filing, which was for clarification, not amendment. (A clerk moved the request to Amendments, as if I were trying to change an ArbComm ruling, which I was not doing.)

The AN ban discussion, linked in Enric's comment, bears looking at. At the end, possible misbehavior by JzG is brought up. And ignored. It became clear in that discussion, and elsewhere, that a major part of GWH's topic ban decision was the successful meta de-blacklisting request on lenr-canr.org. At the time he made his decision, it was a mess. Basically, it was a simple request when made (by me), but all the old arguments, previously decided by consensus in multiple venues, were brought up de novo. JzG does this. Supposedly I don't learn and beat dead horses, but he's a master at it. Issues were raised that required detailed examination, as the discussion proceeded. So I did that,and the result, determined after I'd been topic banned again, was delisting. But the discussion became a train wreck. "See what Abd does?" In fact, they do it, by raising complex issues with sound bites, it takes far more words to respond to these, and it was necessary, at that time, to respond. I doubt that the request would have been granted without it.

The same issue just came up in Talk cold fusion, before I started editing as EnergyNeutral, and JzG and others showed up, once again, to beat the dead "copyvio" horse. Eventually, Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate, took this to WP:ELN. In this case, the attempt -- initiated by Enric Naval! not me! -- is to link to the bibliography on lenr-canr.org, which is unique, the most complete bibliography on the topic anywhere, with hosted preprints of maybe a third of the papers, wherever they've been given permission. It appears that there may be an occasional paper where permissions are defective, but that's actually speculation, one example shows up where Josephson checked with the editor and publisher of the journal in question. There was permission. For all we know, that may be true for all suspected copyvio (pages where the document is as-published, including journal formatting, rather than preprint -- which can be the same text and illustrations!), the site does claim permission from authors and publishers.

This linking should have been done years ago, but was, every time, tendentiously opposed by JzG, who positively hates the site manager, and who used every tool at his disposal to assert the exclusion, including blacklisting on en.wiki (for which he was dinged by ArbComm at my request, if you wonder why he's pissed at me, there you go!), requesting and getting global blacklisting at meta (granted by Mike.lifeguard, in my first experience with that august personage -- and the blacklist admins almost never go back and fix errors), then, recently, during my request for ArbComm review of the topic ban, JzG locally blacklisted it again, and again went to meta for global blacklisting again, in a completely evidence-free request, which seems to be falling flat on its face.

JzG knows, though, that evidence-free requests for ban often fly on Wikipedia, and he's a master at it. One of his tricks was to point to an edit by Jed Rothwell, where he signs, "librarian, lenr-canr.org," and claim that this was "spamming the site." But it wasn't a link! It was just a signature, and when JzG blacklisted the site, those edits didn't stop. Jed was simply identifying himself, disclosing his identity and conflict of interest. He'd only edited Talk:Cold fusion for years.

DGG undid the local blacklisting.

I was blocked during my request for ArbComm clarification, based on alleged topic ban violations. See, I'd asked GWH, back in October, if the ban covered user talk pages for consenting users, and he never replied, but I'd assumed that it was allowed, so I'd made some occasional comments, it had caused no problem or disruption at all, and nobody had complained. Once I filed the request to consider the topic ban with ArbComm, FuturePerfectAtSunrise looked at those and said "topic ban violation" and blocked for two weeks without warning.

That was the last straw for me. FuturePerfect had blocked me many times, each time wikilawyering the various bans into stricter and stricter interpretations. The first block was after I'd criticized a comment of his where he threatened another user that they would be blocked for editing contrary to FP's opinion....

He was highly involved. "How dare you criticize me!" It's all so sordid and banal.

And these are the people who run free, "respected" by the "community." Sorry, if that's the community, I want nothing to do with it, but it's sitting on a world resource, "the sum of all human knowledge," asserting its exclusive right to control it. If the process actually represented the full community of editors, the matter would be different. But it does not, and the practice of banning people because they stand up for their point of view has demolished the neutrality policy.