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]

Once upon a time, Enric Naval started a community ban discussion of me from cold fusion. When I saw the cabal pile in, I knew that consensus against a ban was impossible, and I also knew that if I asked my supporters to stop, a neutral admin would settle on a one-month ban, which was not a problem. So I did, and asked for a neutral close, and got it. Then I asked the closer to confirm the ban duration, he did, as one month, and they screamed.... The matter went to ArbComm later when WMC still insisted he could unilaterally ban me, after the month expired.

In this case, whether there is a ban or not is, AFAIK, completely moot. It will have no effect on my editing, compared to an indef block. Some seem to think that if there is a ban, there will be more freedom to revert my edits. Since they were already reverting everything, including restoring a BLP violation, with no inhibition, since they were already using revision deletion, what are they looking for? Permission to drop a nuke on Western Massachusetts?

New arguments keep coming in that just plain leave me puzzled. But first, an older one.

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)

I.e., the rest of us don't know we are right? Unlike them? If someone is right and knows it, does this disqualify them from editing Wikipedia. And how do they know what I know? I don't know I'm right, I think that "right" is a story, an interpretation, not a fact, and doesn't belong to the realm of knowledge. Rather, I take stands, present evidence and arguments, and expect others to do the same. And they certainly do! Except some just say "You're wrong."

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)

Geez, Louise, I didn't seek adminship at all, I was nominated and accepted. That was way, way before I had a clue about cold fusion. And once I became COI, I followed COI restrictions rigorously. Eaglestorm demonstrates the obtuse misunderstanding underneath much Wikipedia drama: COI editors are *expected* to advocate, that's why they are prohibited from controversial editing of articles under COI, but they are *asked* to advise on the Talk page. And that's what I was topic banned for, by this brilliant "community," led by JzG. At what point is anyone going to notice that almost every disruptive process around cold fusion has been started by JzG? Ban this one, ban that one, delete these files, delete those, blacklist and revert war. They strain at a gnat and swallow horseflies.

But is he around now? I could name several administrators whose modus operandi is to lie low for a while and then creep back when the flak has cleared. In what way is this case different? Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Abd's WV page, June 3, which is pretty close to now. That is a unified account, so within the limits of MW software, it is the same person. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am registering accounts from various locations, just in case, perhaps making a few edits, normal and harmless ones at worst. These are laid up in store because of the history of range blocking. None of this would be necessary if normal RBI were followed, but I don't expect the logic of this to dawn on them. None of these will ever be used to actually damage the project. The last edit documented on the Wikiversity page was May 31, not June 3. Franamax is confused. I am not disclosing the Sekrit accounts, for obvious reasons, at this time. However, the whole Wikipedia obsession with socking is crazy, and demonstrating the insanity is part of my agenda. There are deep contradictions within the Kool-Aid that these people drink. Those contradictions eventually make people sick.

(Self-reversion was designed for an RBI environment, where further sanctions would be applied to an editor only if they made it necessary, and normal self-reverted edits are just suggestions and do no harm. But the Kool-Aid drinkers think of a ban as punishment and that "justice must be done," and "the community must be respected," as they proceed to ban it, one editor at a time, and where, part of what's being demonstrated, POV is banned (look at the bans JzG proposed!). I'm a strong believer in respecting consensus, which is why I took two years to conclude that this "community" wasn't a real community, that respecting its ad-hoc process was insane, and it was time to take a stand, instead of attempting to respect ever-tightening bans and restrictions, based on ... misinterpretations is a kind word.)

He's providing blow-by-blow commentary on this thread on Wikipedia Review so I don't think he can be fairly described as inactive. If he has another sock which we haven't spotted then he could be editing right now. Hut 8.5 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inactive on Wikipedia, but it's moot. I was recently active, May 31. The real issue, raised by a few sane editors, would be the function of the ban request. It was raised by JzG, who was, many times, advised by ArbComm to lay off Abd. JzG is Bad News, but when someone raises the cry, they look where that person is pointing, not at the one pointing. Unless it was me, when I pointed out that WMC was violating recusal policy, well, he was their friend, so then they looked at me. But I hadn't asked for anyone to be banned, ever. They do it *frequently*, and I fully expect that some other editor is going to be accused of being an Abd sock. Look at this doozie. Want to know who caused the whole cold fusion flap that led WMC to topic-ban me? Hipocrite. Hipocrite was obviously a bad hand sock of someone, and J.delanoy knew who, and kept it quiet. (It's unlikely that Objectivist, V, is a sock -- naive and rather helpless -- and the person I'd suspect, who is indeed from Belgium, I think, is topic banned (community ban, JzG stirred it up), that editor explicitly refused help from me years ago, I very much doubt he'd sock -- and I doubt that J.delanoy would have concealed it. Hipocrite was a cabal supporter who went to cold fusion to stir up cause for Abd to be banned, that became obvious. They didn't care about cold fusion, they cared about the global warming agenda, and I'd dinged their limo. Somebody involved was heavily socking, that's clear.

Support This isn't a case of one sock: it's chronic editing through IP accounts, practicing block evasion on Wikipedia as a "research project". —Kww(talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Chronic editing" by IP was from the time of the block, April 30, until May 13. Two weeks. Yes, there is a research project, more accurately a demonstration project, investigation of community response to block evasion when the evasion isn't otherwise disruptive. You could also call it civil disobedience, ignoring unjust orders. As is common with civil disobedience, I'm not surprised when sanctioned for it, and don't blame the "officers" who "arrest me," but I do expect them to refrain from excessive force and the causing of harm.

Support a community ban per Enric Naval's links. Community members - especially certain arbitrators - who have abetted Abd's years of obnoxious filibustering need to reconsider the effect their refusal to sanction disruptive behavior has on the editors who actually have to deal with said disruption, and on article content. To those who are claiming that there has been only one sock, Abd has engaged in extensive IP editing before and after his block. Skinwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He's confused. No IP editing by me before being blocked. There are many others who IP edit Cold fusion. My only influence on article content has been where consensus crystallized around a suggestion of mine, which was rare at cold fusion, because there has been a set of POV-pushing editors sitting on that article for years, long before I was involved. Before he was finally site-banned, ScienceApologist heavily edited that article, without any restraint. He was seriously disruptive for years, and his editing was only transiently opposed by me, and only on the Talk page. He renamed his account Joshua P. Schroeder, his real name, apparently, then to VanishedUser314159 (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Look at the history of Cold fusion. Heavy POV-pusher. You can't find any behavior of mine that comes close to matching it. Try to find a bad edit to Cold fusion from me, in the short period between the expiration of my ArbComm ban and the new one that JzG prompted. What they point to is discussion, by an expert, now highly knowledgeable. CF is complex, it's a twenty-year-long scientific controversy, of a phenomenon that was extremely difficult to set up, that was rejected on theoretical grounds by those who did not ever demonstrate that the core finding of the original research, unexpected heat, was error. As the most recent review in a major mainstream scientific journal points out, though, evidence accumulated..... From the identified and measured product, and the ratio of energy release to product, it's fusion, all right, but the mechanism is still unknown. That's a big threat to those who believe we know everything.

If it were up to me, I'd put the claim in the article, attributed to the author, because it is obviously still controversial, even though no opposing reviews have appeared in the more than 8 months since it was published.

Support. I see no substantial difference between "many socks" and "one sock and many IPs". The claim that "it's only one sock" is plainly untrue, as Abd himself helpfully documented in Kww's link above. The standard justification for a community ban for a user in the present situation is that reverts of their edits made in violation of the ban will be exempt from xRR rules, which do appear to be needed given the persistent evasion. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This would only be true, maybe, if there had been sock revert warring over reversion of evading edits. That hasn't happened. This community ban will just give them more cover for what they were already doing. From past experience, then, if someone sees an edit of mine, checks it and reverts it back in, they will then call the person a "meat puppet" for a "banned editor." They do that anyway, even when editors aren't banned but only blocked. "Banned" just sounds more solid.

Support As a community member as and custodian at Wikiversity as well as a wikipedian. Abd's "experiment" on the wikipedia community causes disruption here, has been attracting vandals at WV. He is damaging both communities, and severing the cord completely seems the most likely way to get him to move on. In his Wikipedia Review posts about EnergyNeutral being blocked, Abd states that none of his other socks have been blocked. (The posting makes it sound as if the others are avoiding Cold Fusion). He finds playing whack-a-mole "soooo much fun". But most importantly, he literally delights in the collateral damage attempts to block him cause innocent editors because it proves he is right. Thenub314 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There were two short edits, not vandalism, but provocative, perhaps, by a user apparently more interested in Poetlister than me, but one of the edits was to my Talk page. This may be related to certain discussions here, but really is completely moot to the question of my ban from Wikipedia. Yes, I had some fun, but I did not delight in collateral damage, and took steps to correct it, which were very much not respected. The ones who don't care about collateral damage are the enforcing administrators who create massive range blocks to stop harmless editing and stupid edit filters that trap one of the most common Muslim names. And they have been doing this kind of thing fora long time, I didn't cause them to invent it.

Support Manifesto on his talk page is antithetic to the concepts of Wikipedia. --WGFinley (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF is he talking about?

Support Yes, its high time. Abd is wasting the time of other users and we need to make our disapproval explicit. I'm astonished by how many people find his behaviour acceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start the ban discussion, JzG did. What ever happened to RBI? Who is "we," in "our disapproval"? I know that Spartaz disapproves, he expressed that long ago, when I confronted his cabal friends. In any extensive discussion, at that time, as in RfC/JzG 3, I could count on it being about 2/3 Ban Abd, even though the RfC was based on open-and-shut evidence. They don't like that kind of evidence when they don't like the conclusion, so they blame the messenger.

Yes, indeed. Abd has made clear his intention to subvert this encyclopedia. In early 2010 Abd and GoRight wasted time on arbitration noticeboards in attempts to have GoRight act as Abd's official mentor (e.g. see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Abd, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Abd). With Abd's very recent sockpuppet account EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked a week ago by Coren,[3] walls of text continuing elsewhere and Lomax cold fusion kits now advertised on the web, there is no evidence that Abd is "down". Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Mathsci. Mathsci just put more energy into the GoRight mentorship proposal than the original proposal involved. (The real proposed mentor was Fritzpoll, told in 2009 that it wasn't needed, by an arbitrator, and then, when he was an arb, told that arbs could not mentor, even though Fritzpoll was already recusing on everything Abd.) EnergyNeutral was not a "wall of text" editor, that's just habitual accusation. There is something wrong with offering kits to make it cheap and easy, relatively speaking, to verify research published by the U.S. Navy? I declared the COI, after all, and followed those rules.

Comment I don't remember why I don't like him. But I will still hold my pitchfork high based on the AA stuff that used to be on his user page. Rabble rabble. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great comment. But AA stuff? What's he talking about? Okay, I looked. Here, removed in 2009.