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:

[Wikifan]

why were you banned again?

[Abd]

why were you banned again?

Not "again." This is the first indef site ban. I was previously banned by ArbComm, for one year, from cold fusion, and indefinitely from not minding my own business, i.e., intervening in any dispute where I wasn't a primary party, and site-banned for three months. Don't get me started on that. The Cold fusion ban was based on the claims of Enric Naval that I'd ... well, it wasn't clear at all. ArbComm referred to his evidence, and it looks like they didn't actually check it, because part of it that they cited was Enric Naval quoting himself in RfAr/Fringe science, where he argued against what they later concluded. Enric was just trying to make the same point again. I think they thought he was quoting me!

The cold fusion ban expired, but meanwhile I'd started a small business involving cold fusion replication kits, designed for high school students (one is being tested right now, which is pretty exciting), so I declared the COI and behaved according to COI guidelines, which allow editing the Talk page. COI editors are *expected* to have a POV bias, that's why there are COI rules!

But JzG requested a renewed topic ban, on AN, as he'd done before with Pcarbonn when Pcarbonn's ban ran out. It was closed with a ban, largely based on my successful removal of lenr-canr.org from the meta blacklist. The closing admin, who claimed that he was enforcing General Sanctions on cold fusion, didn't like how much I'd written there, even though that had been made necessary by the farrago of arguments JzG and others raised. Answering brief false charges takes a lot more words if evidence is supplied than, "Lies!" If I'd just told that truth, simply, the delisting request would have been ignored, I'm sure of it. I had to prove the case.

So then I was topic banned again. I planned to take this to ArbComm, but I do have Other Stuff to do. Eventually I did file, at the end of April. ArbComm rejected the request for clarification. Too long, I suppose. You'd think that at least one arbitrator would have read it and commented on the content, it was not that long! During that request, I was blocked for allegedly violating the cold fusion topic ban. The edits behind that were old, to user talk pages, and I'd asked the banning admin about them. He hadn't replied, but I'd made many such edits for many months, and there had been no complaints. So I thought they were okay. After all, why should I be prohibited from communicating with consenting editors? These comments were welcome, apparently.

At this point I gave up on Wikipedia due process. The system was thoroughly and irremediably corrupt, I concluded, so I proceeded to operate on that assumption. I started by making self-reverted edits, "self-revert per ban" the reversions said. I documented them on my Talk page. All those edits were reasonable, non-disruptive edits -- except for being block violations. (Actually, some of them were *removing* the alleged ban violations!) This was a demonstration of self-reversion under ban, which can work, if there is any local support. It both respects the ban and the possible contributions of the editor. However, no big surprise, each IP was blocked and my talk page access was cut off. This was still during the RfAr/Clarification request (later changed, improperly, by a clerk, to an Amendment request).

So I started doing the documentation on Wikiversity.. I'd say the process has been useful. Some good content was generated on Wikipedia, some problems with enforcement were revealed, etc.

It's true that it takes up the time of administrators who, being free, choose to waste their time blocking editors who make harmless edits, and, being self-reverted, and without complaint about egregious content, this truly is a waste of time. Collateral damage is only caused when administrators choose to move to range blocks, and damage was also done through setting an unnecessary edit filter (now turned off for server load reasons).

This is intolerable to the Kool-Aid drinkers, lese majeste. They do not accept WP:RBI (self-reversion works if RBI is followed, and works spectacularly if self-reverted edits are not considered to be ban or block evasion. It breaks down if even harmless edits result in range blocks, revision deletion, and the edit filter was applied to keep me from identifying myself in the edit summaries! That was brilliant, I must say, since my response was simple: I stopped identifying myself, thus turning self-reversion, practically guaranteed to be harmless, into socking. They create what they hate. I can still edit any time I choose to do so, and if you don't see any edits, it's because I don't choose to make them visible.

Hence EnergyNeutral was created, and ultimately the record of EnergyNeutral will be examined. EN was cooperating with a Nobel laureate, and was rigorously neutral in article editing. At the Energy Catalyzer article, I think that EN was seen as anti-cold fusion.... All the edits of EN remain at this point,except for an issue that is still being debated.

The single true ban-violating sock, EN, was a collaborative editor, see especially the work of EN at the article on Brian David Josephson, where 2over0 restored EN's edit after JzG reverted it. 2over0 is an admin I'd have expected to be hostile to me....

Wikipedia, as a community, has no shame. No individual can be considered responsible, it's part of the problem. Even Jimbo seems to be afraid of the community, he knows it can turn on him in a flash -- and has, frequently.

What's been learned through the Wikipedia experiment?