JzG pushing for ban of a POV again, He's at AN stirring up the mob Options

[Abd]

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cold_fusion

JzG repeats arguments that he gave a year ago, and, as I found typical when I started, as a neutral editor, investigating his blacklistings and blocks and various admin actions around cold fusion, he alleges a pile of assertions that fall apart when examined and compared with what actually happened.

What's he claiming? He cites the FoF from RfAr/Cold fusion, which found that Pcarbonn had an agenda, based on an off-wiki article he wrote which, in fact, was a Wikipedia-praising piece, he was praising the reliable source policies, and what he was "pushing" was that Wikipedia follow guidelines, and the Fringe science arbitration which JzG cites as evidence of dead-horse beating actually confirmed Pcarbonn's position. But you'd never know that from what's stated on AN now by JzG and the chorus.

Pcarbonn is an expert on the topic, apparently. He may be COI, I'm not sure, but he's refrained from editing the article, he only was making suggestions on Talk. That's "advocating." And that's exactly what we want experts to do, if we want a reliable project.

There is no neutral close. I think it likely that there will be claims of canvassing because of this notice here, but ... I'm asking for neutral administrators to look at this. I hope that it is noticed that what JzG is doing, he did before, before ArbComm, and it was rejected. He's banning or attempting to ban an editor based purely on the editor's POV, based on his own very contrary and firmly established POV, which he edit warred, in the past, to maintain. JzG has a history of making spurious arguments that sound good at first, they can attract neutral editors to agree, not to mention the chorus, those who join him in his POV and crusade against "fringe."

But Pcarbonn isn't advocating fringe science, he's advocating that the article reflect what is in reliable source, with only an occasional mention of less reliable sources for background. There is, lately, a veritable deluge of mainstream media and mainstream academic publication on cold fusion, but the resident skeptics who own the article reject it all as "fringe."

The evidence that it's fringe? Well, cold fusion is fringe, right? And the articles, even if published in a mainstream publication, are about cold fusion, so the articles are fringe and the authors are fringe, because they are "advocating" cold fusion. Anybody who "advocates" cold fusion is fringe, it's a tautology. And so any editor who tries to put material in the article from these "fringe" sources, published by, say, Oxford University Press, the American Chemical Society, or Elsevier's recent Encyclopedia of Electrochemistry, is a "fringe POV-pusher," and should be banned.

It became truly and amazingly blatant. Pcarbonn, seeing the discussion and the claim of Future Perfect that he'd been banned, offered help to Dual Use, who may be an SPA also, a returning user. So ... without any guideline violations being even alleged, Dual Use was banned as well.

It is banning of a POV.

Disclosure: I was skeptical about cold fusion in January of last year, when I discovered the situation at the article. My interest was and remains consensus and neutrality, which are interlinked, and if you ban half of a dispute, you can't find neutrality. However, I did then start reading in the field and was amazed by what I found. Solid evidence for the reality of low energy nuclear reactions was in the literature as primary sources by the mid 1990s. It's now in peer-reviewed secondary sources, but you'd never know this from the Wikipedia article. Not just one secondary source. Dozens. The only reasonably clear indication of overall consensus we have is from the 2004 DoE report, which clearly showed that a massive shift had taken place since 1989, when the DoE issued a report with similar conclusions but a very different basis. The conclusion in 1989 was that more research should be done, but no big federal program, but we know from RS that this conclusion was politically forced by the Nobel Prize-winning co-chair, who insisted on it or he'd resign. There probably wouldn't have been more than two members of the committee who actually thought it worth pursuing. (Maybe about fifteen members to the committee, it's not clear)

But in 2004, half the18-member panel considered the critical excess heat claims were convincing. If you think that excess heat is not convincing, you won't think it is nuclear in origin, so I state the other major opinion as "two thirds of those who support excess heat considered that the evidence that it was nuclear was "somewhat convincing." These were experts, gathered by the DoE. They included some who were, from their comments, obviously not willing to give cold fusion a moment's thought, they thought the whole thing was fraud and shoddy work, a conclusion they came to fifteen years earlier. Since 2004, there has been a great deal of publication in the field, 2004 was roughly the nadir. There is now a torrent. In spite of what was now stated as the unanimous recommendation of the panel, the DoE didn't fund any research. But the U.S. Department of Defense has been funding it, the Italian government has been funding it, and there are many other research groups working on it, and papers are being published in much larger numbers.

I'm not advocating a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I'm suggesting that it's time to start, in an alleged fringe science topic, using the reliable sources, following reliable source guidelines, and the principles enunciated in RfAr/Fringe science, and not some pseudo-skeptical agenda to exclude this stuff. Let the article fall where it may, the article should not advocate for or against cold fusion, and should reflect the balance that's in the sources.

But if one looks, the negative sources have almost entirely disappeared, whereas the positive sources are blossoming. This isn't about free energy or the like, it's about science. Are low energy nuclear reactions possible? It was never actually theoretically impossible, and there are known examples, and all that happened in 1989, apparently, was that an unexpected mechanism was discovered. There is now substantial theoretical work that explains this using classical quantum field theory, it's not actually new physics, simply overlooked possibilities, if the theories are correct. It's still true that nobody really knows, from theory confirmed by predictions and experiment, solidly, what's happening. But that may change.... I don't have a crystal ball, either.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: deleted duplicate thread and message.]

[RMHED]

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cold_fusion

JzG repeats arguments that he gave a year ago, blah, blah, blah

JzG's a cunt, I suggest you tell him so on his talk page and stop whining here.

[Abd]

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cold_fusionJzG repeats arguments that he gave a year ago, blah, blah, blah

JzG's a cunt, I suggest you tell him so on his talk page and stop whining here.

I'm not whining, I'm using this forum to provide notice to a wide group of editors and administrators who might see it here. This forum includes editors on all sides, and it's entirely possible that negative comment (as to my views) will show up as a result.

I'm not going to tell JzG he's a cunt, because he's not, plus it would violate my topic ban if I told him why I was saying it, or be considered a violation, and I'd just be blocked for no good purpose, even aside from civility problems. In fact, though, I don't know what he is and don't care. I don't know JzG, I only know what he's done, which has been heavily damaging to the project, though WMC was worse. JzG was a blatant, uncivil asshole, so to speak, WMC was more polite. I prefer the former. Though WMC himself is much better than many who supported him. We are gradually getting rid of those jerks, they have certainly lost much of their power over the last year, and I played a role in that.

In fact, I don't really care about Wikipedia that much any more, the "community," that part of it that's coherent enough to act in some semi-organized way, hasn't been particularly "nice" to me. But I do care about the editors, the people who are trying to do their best or to serve the cause of a neutral encyclopedia, which is why I'm bothering at all.

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." That is, banned from doing so on Wikipedia. Not here. Now, RHMED, go fuck yourself. Even though we might agree in some ways about JzG.

[RMHED]

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." That is, banned from doing so on Wikipedia. Not here. Now, RHMED, go fuck yourself. Even though we might agree in some ways about JzG.

Fuck me! You really are delusional. You'd be far better off knocking on Guy's door and chinning him.

Oh and WMC is a cunt too.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Abd]

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." That is, banned from doing so on Wikipedia. Not here. Now, RHMED, go fuck yourself. Even though we might agree in some ways about JzG.

Fuck me! You really are delusional. You'd be far better off knocking on Guy's door and chinning him.

RHMED, you're clueless. If I go to JzG's talk page and "chin him," I'd be blocked in a flash, unless I have some excuse and make very nice and don't raise anything to do with the situation I described here. I "chinned" JzG long ago, warning him that he was using his tools while involved. He's not doing that any more, notice? But he's still pursuing the same agenda, using arguments he should know are bankrupt, he's used them before and they've been rejected by the community and ArbComm.

If any friends of his read this, I suggest what I suggested they do before, while I was letting the charges that became RfAr/Abd and Jzg sit for a month: give him some friendly advice. He's shooting himself in the foot, and he might win a ban himself out of it. Had his friends listened before, he might still be an admin. Might even be a good one.

Oh and WMC is a cunt too.

Stop whining and do something about it.

[RMHED]

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." That is, banned from doing so on Wikipedia. Not here. Now, RHMED, go fuck yourself. Even though we might agree in some ways about JzG.

Fuck me! You really are delusional. You'd be far better off knocking on Guy's door and chinning him.

RHMED, you're clueless. If I go to JzG's talk page and "chin him," I'd be blocked in a flash, unless I have some excuse and make very nice and don't raise anything to do with the situation I described here. I "chinned" JzG long ago, warning him that he was using his tools while involved. He's not doing that any more, notice? But he's still pursuing the same agenda, using arguments he should know are bankrupt, he's used them before and they've been rejected by the community and ArbComm.

If any friends of his read this, I suggest what I suggested they do before, while I was letting the charges that became RfAr/Abd and Jzg sit for a month: give him some friendly advice. He's shooting himself in the foot, and he might win a ban himself out of it. Had his friends listened before, he might still be an admin. Might even be a good one.

Oh and WMC is a cunt too.

Stop whining and do something about it.

Oh dear, you took the bait, you utterly sad desperate twat.

You really do have tunnel vision don't you.

[Hipocrite]

Looks like you and your buds got F'ed in the A, Abdul.

This post has been edited by Hipocrite:

[Abd]

Looks like you and your buds got F'ed in the A, Abdul.

Oh that explains those good feelings, H. Curious. Things are working out swimmingly. Poifect. JzG is shooting himself in the foot, Future Perfect is setting himself up for some serious embarrassment, that's how it looks to me. Why don't you pop in and join the fun? It would be great to whack four or five birds with one stone.

Look, I don't like to see what JzG is doing to himself, it was sad to see WMC fall as he did. I don't actually enjoy that, though, I'll admit, there is a certain thrill. You, on the other hand, can burn in hell forever and I'll laugh, because you are hiding, JzG and WMC are and were openly themselves, and you are ... a hipocrite.

You imagine that you are winning something by seeing some editors banned. There are more coming, Hipocrite, you are pushing against a landslide. Haven't you noticed?

I hardly have to lift a finger. I swim with the tide, H., at least at this point. Sometimes I anticipate it a bit, but it comes.

By the way, what in the world was that checkuser talking about with the multiple accounts when you filed a checkuser report on Dual Use? I see that Future Perfect has misread that report, it's part of what will embarrass him when this all comes out -- unless he takes a good look and does the right thing and says "Oops!"

Any friends of Future Perfect here? A word to the wise.

[thekohser]

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

[Jon Awbrey]

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

Run ! You Fools !!

[RMHED]

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

All the time, though of course they tend to be far more unpleasant.

[A Horse With No Name]

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it.

This is something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Abd]

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it.

This is something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Sure. Don't imagine, though, that this is all I do. It's a small fraction. What I do is legitimate, or at least arguably so. WR is a place where I can put a comment likely to be seen by many editors and arbitrators. The extent to which I use email is more limited. WR is a place that sometimes works to call attention to these festering sores. I can't do this on-wiki because of two topic bans. It's possible that some efforts will be made to ding me for this, here, but if Arbcomm tries to sanction free speech off-wiki, it will have established itself as a true enemy, unworthy of any respect. Short of that, which I don't expect, I'm responsible for respecting AC decisions, no matter how stupid.

[dtobias]

and the Fringe science arbitration which JzG cites as evidence of dead-horse beating actually confirmed Pcarbonn's position.

The idea that others are beating a dead horse is a trope which JzG pounds on as if it were a deceased equine itself.

[SB_Johnny]

and the Fringe science arbitration which JzG cites as evidence of dead-horse beating actually confirmed Pcarbonn's position.

The idea that others are beating a dead horse is a trope which JzG pounds on as if it were a deceased equine itself.

Someone should really upload an audio file of a dead horse being beaten with a dead trout.

Just for fun, of course.

[A Horse With No Name]

Someone should really upload an audio file of a dead horse being beaten with a dead trout.

Just for fun, of course.

I take it that my company is not wanted, hmmm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Abd]

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

Wouldn't that be fun to know?

[Trick cyclist]

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

Wouldn't that be fun to know?

There must be some arguments on Britannica between contributors, or between editors and contributors. No doubt more civilised and better-informed than most of what passes for debate and seeking consensus, but they exist. Whatever defects Wikipedia has, article discussions are generaly in the open for the world to see. (Or are there loads on e-mails I don't know about?)

[Guido den Broeder]

The world never looks at them, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(No, not that many mails. But many a 'consensus' comes from canvassing on IRC.)