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]

* 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.

[Malleus]

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.

I somewhat agree with that point of view. How anyone with Jimbo Wales' grandiose vision can allow the project to be run largely by children and in the way that it is will very likely forever remain a mystery to me.