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]

(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:

[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.