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:

[The Joy]

I count 39 editors voting. How is that "community consensus?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Abd]

I count 39 editors voting. How is that "community consensus?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

It's Wikispeak for "whatever the closer wants, believing that his or her opinion is that of a community majority."

The contradiction is blatant, but if you have drunk enough Kool-Aid, you don't notice.

Let's look at the comments.

I'll roughly classify editors into those who are involved, AFAIK, based simply on memory, and those not.

No editors opposed the ban on substance, so there is already a strong bias, some of those who would have supported me on substance have been banned themselves, others have given up in disgust, and some simply don't read AN, nor do they read Wikipedia Review, and I made no attempt to attract these users to comment. The normal way that those who support an editor find a ban discussion is the notice on the user Talk page. No notice was placed on my User talk page.

The original instigator of the ban discussion, JzG, is truly disruptive, has been admonished by ArbComm, and continues to be senselessly provocative. That is, A proposes that B be banned, when A is the real long-term problem, but A manages to focus the attention on B, based on this or that unpopular cheap-shot characteristic. And A has done this to many editors. And "the community" looks the other way, including ArbComm.

Support ban:

1. Franamax (proposer)
x. Raul654 -- heavily involved.
x. Badger Drink -- prior conflict.
2. Will Beback
x. Dlohcierekim -- apparent long-term prejudice (see RfA/Abd 2).
x. Mathsci -- heavily involved.
3. Johnuniq
x. Hut 8.5 -- involved.
4. bobrayner
x. Stephan Schulz -- heavily involved
5. Eaglestorm
6. Resolute
7. Crazytales
x. Atmoz -- involved in the past (see RfC/GoRight), though some of the evidence just got deleted.
8. Captain panda
x. Enric Naval -- very heavily involved
x. Kww -- involved
9. Skinwalker
x. T. Canens -- involved
10. chaos5023
x. Thenub314 -- prior conflict, long story.
11. Beyond My Ken
12. WGFinley
x. Spartaz -- heavily involved
13. MuZemike
14. Night Ranger
15. Saddhiyama
16. Courcelles (closer)

Oppose:
1. Ëzhiki
2. Writegeist
3. Collect
4. Silverseren
5. Firsfron of Ronchester
6. Malleus Fatuorum
7. LessHeard vanU
8. Vecrumba
9. Alpha Quadrant
10. Piotrus
11. Titoxd
12. Guerillero

Cptnono made a sarcastic comment, probably opposed to ban.

It's closer than I thought. However, one or two of the editors opposed to the ban might be considered to have prior positive involvement with me. What's really a problem is that decisions are supposedly made by evidence and arguments, and the proposal was explicitly evidence-free, so it invited editors to vote based on prior or knee-jerk impressions, not on specifically reviewed evidence. Initial editors may vote based on AGF of the proposer, or previous bias, and once some critical mass of editors in favor of a ban has assembled, additional editors will vote based on supporting what they see as an emerging consensus, they have no idea about prior involvement in conflict, and I was an editor who successfully confronted administrative recusal failure, twice (with JzG and William M. Connolley) and those admins and their friends never forget.

The process makes no difference whatever in my behavior, nor in how the community will respond to it. There is only one practical difference that the "community ban" makes -- in spite of some claims to the contrary in the discussion: should I decide to request unblock, which I never did this time, and am extremely unlikely to do, an admin, in theory, cannot unblock without taking the matter back to the community -- or to ArbComm --, which is why I'm generally opposed to community bans like this. It increases disruption rather than decreasing it, both in the present, to discuss and declare the ban, and in the future.

Meanwhile, JzG is not content: On Wikiversity, and on Meta, see the collapse at the end of JzG's blacklisting request.

The difference between Meta and Wikipedia: on Meta, JzG's deceptions are not immediately believed. Only one user supported JzG's evidence-free blacklisting request, and that user also supported the January 2009 original blacklisting, based on the same false claims. I always wonder what to think about WP users with over 100,000 contributions. This one is an administrator.

This post has been edited by Abd: