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:

[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.