JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims Options

[Abd]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

[Cla68]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Guido den Broeder]

Don't be surprised if a group of editors will now systematically delete all your contributions one by one.

[Abd]

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

Right, it should be expected. However, this particular issue was very widely debated before, and appeared settled. It means to me that JzG hasn't changed his spots. No big surprise and no big deal, why should I care about whether or not it is easy for readers of the article to actually read the source? No skin off my teeth.

On editors undoing stuff, it was fascinating to see Hipocrite, who has returned now that the RfAr that might have considered his behavior is closed, blanking the cabal evidence page that JzG put up for deletion, with an edit summary, "To the victor?"

I just didn't expect it to be so blatant. But Hipocrite was right out there before, the most flagrantly disruptive editor I've seen (beyond ones immediately blocked). It's obvious: he has people protecting him.

I don't mind blanking of the pages, by the way, though I do mind deletion, actually removing the evidence that was used by ArbComm. Even that, though, isn't a big thing in the long run. The Cab's days are numbered. I've seen more Cab activity in the last day than I'd seen in a long time, I'm not sure what that means. Some of them had been laying low, but still it's a huge burst.

Don't be surprised if a group of editors will now systematically delete all your contributions one by one.

I won't. However, there just might be some resistance to that.... we'll see. There is a series of voting system AfDs filed today, one on an article I recreated, filed by a probable sock of the blocked Yellowbeard, Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , he's taking advantage of the opportunity.

[Cla68]

It means to me that JzG hasn't changed his spots.

JzG also still refuses to admit that he was wrong about Weiss/Mantanmoreland.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

It is customary in WikiCulture to stubbornly cling to erroneous beliefs.

Perhaps there should be a required course in Fuzzy Logic to counteract that tendency.

[Abd]

It means to me that JzG hasn't changed his spots.

JzG also still refuses to admit that he was wrong about Weiss/Mantanmoreland.

I emailed him, telling him about Cordyceps2009 and reminding him that he'd blocked Yellowbeard in September 2008. I'd say it's definite that this is Yellowbeard, but when I filed an SSP report in July, it was dismissed with a let's see.... Now he's on to more of Yellowbeard's interests, such as:

Old AfD for Proportional approval voting

And, of course, he voted to delete the cabal page, for Yellowbeard became obsessed with retaliating against me, because I'd rained on his AfD parade; until I noticed and started intervening, he had succeeded in nominating a whole series of voting systems articles, he probably is an Instant runoff voting activist, for he was eliminating the various competing systems and voting system criteria that are used by experts to criticize IRV.

Blatant sock. Yellowbeard was, as well, from the beginning, didn't bother to conceal it. Obviously experienced editor, immediately active in AfD, first edits. Yet it took donkey's ages before anyone did anything about it. I thought he might be Nrcprm2026, but I now think, probably not. If he is Nrcprm, there might be old checkuser data.

[Milton Roe]

Blatant sock. Yellowbeard was, as well, from the beginning, didn't bother to conceal it. Obviously experienced editor, immediately active in AfD, first edits. Yet it took donkey's ages before anyone did anything about it. I thought he might be Nrcprm2026, but I now think, probably not. If he is Nrcprm, there might be old checkuser data.

There is no such thing as "old checkuser data."

[Abd]

If he is [Nrcprm2026], there might be old checkuser data.

There is no such thing as "old checkuser data."

And there is no cabal. If only the current checkuser data is available, it's unlikely anything could be correlated, because of the lapse of time. But Nrcprm2026 has been a very persistent sock master; the reason I suspected him was that there is an apparent coincidence of interests around Instant runoff voting. Because Nrcprm2026 has been so persistent, some checkusers might have saved data. While it's possible, as I said, I now consider it unlikely. I suspect, as well, that Nrcprm2026 would also not consider me, at this point, as an enemy, because of cold fusion POV, so the edit to the cabal evidence MfD would be puzzling. For Yellowbeard, not puzzling at all. SOP.

[SirFozzie]

I think your "cabal" page ought to be deleted, Abd.. but I also think WMC's attack page should be deleted too.

[EricBarbour]

Abd, why do you keep acting "surprised' when this crap goes on?

Have you been too busy blubbering at us (about cold fusion and Connolley)......
to notice all the ugly things uncovered about Sweet Mister Chapman in past years?

Did you really think your enemies on-wiki would not destroy your leavings after you were banned?
If you did, then why do you keep picking at the same bleeding scabs?

[dtobias]

He does seem to have adopted the WR meme that it is "right to delete [[WP:BLP]] articles of questionable notability when the subject requests it".

[Abd]

Abd, why do you keep acting "surprised' when this crap goes on?

Nice day today. I'm not surprised when I comment on the weather.

Have you been too busy blubbering at us ...

Yes. Entirely too busy. But blubbering is such ... fun! My entire diet is fat, saturated. So what if the ketones get me a little jacked? Smart or sweet, pick one.

Did you really think your enemies on-wiki would not destroy your leavings after you were banned?

No, I didn't really think that. Anyway, JzG has been reverted. He's edit warred over this before, what will happen now? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of Same Old. Meanwhile, a message from our sponsor.

If you did, then why do you keep picking at the same bleeding scabs?

Because picking at scabs is a natural instinct. Don't you?

[Moulton]

It is a pleasant surprise when someone acquires sufficient self-discipline to override their baser instincts with higher echelons of intelligence, wisdom, and insight.

[Son of a Yeti]

JzG also still refuses to admit that he was wrong about Weiss/Mantanmoreland.

Has he ever admitted anything?

[Moulton]

Has he ever admitted anything?

If not, has he ever admitted that he's never admitted anything?

[Abd]

Has he ever admitted anything?

If not, has he ever admitted that he's never admitted anything?

Has anyone ever asked him if he ever admitted that he never admitted anything?

However, there is an example very recently where he admitted something. I sent him an email about an obvious sock of Yellowbeard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and he put up a notice at AN/I about it, noting that it was from a banned editor (me), but admitting that the suspicion was "worth investigating." The AN/I report and a permanent link for future generations.

And this raises an issue: involved editors and administrators are motivated to so something about a problem, the uninvolved may not be. In all the protest about my work to confront use of tools while involved, something was lost: it wasn't the actual use that I was protesting, but the failure to acknowledge involvement and recuse after using the tools. JzG was here involved, it could be asserted, because he previously blocked Yellowbeard. One editor commented "duck." But no admin picked up on more than that, and nobody has filed a new SSP report, now that "sock" is even more obvious than it was before, at the time of the first report. It's work. If nobody cares enough to put together what is needed, nothing is done.

If an involved admin asks for help (and JzG's comment can be read that way), I've often seen the report ignored, or, worse, debate began. I documented a situation where an AfD was involved, and leaving the abusively re-opened AfD open attracted comment, creating a hugely disruptive AfD, with the process and content cabals duking it out. The admin had scrupulously avoided protecting the page or blocking the editor who was reverting his speedy close, but recused. And got a bad result. I argued, later, that the admin should have, at least, have protected the article, and probably should have blocked the editor, who was a blatant sock, and then recused, reporting to a noticeboard. Instead the issue at AN/I became whether or not the article was notable. If ArbComm needs discipline, AN/I needs it even more, the original purpose of the page has been lost, it was designed as emergency request for admin assistance, and instead it has become, too often, a forum to debate issues. It could be fixed, rather easily done in a technical sense, but with only difficulty because of serious inertia. The admin who created AN/I later wrote, in a retirement notice, that it had become a monster.

Much argument against enforcing recusal rules comes from a legitimate concern along this line. Editors who have sufficient knowledge to make good decisions, are often involved. Uninvolved administrators frequently err because they don't understand the situation. Disentangling this from the fact that involved admins are often biased is necessary. I would claim that admins aren't usually dinged for action while involved, but for tenacious refusal to recuse after involvement is questioned. And I claimed, to much derision, that admins should normally recuse upon request, no issue of blame or necessity for disruptive discussion.

An error recently made was that a block of WMC for edit warring over a BLP issue was reversed because the admin was allegedly involved. Not only was the claim of involvement preposterously thin (no prior involvement was shown, only edits working on the particular incident to remove a BLP violation after a BLP noticeboard request), but involvement is no reason to wheel-war, unless the underlying claim of the blocking admin has no merit at all. Rather, the behavior of the blocked editor should always be the issue. Involvement does not equal substantial error, only, possibly, procedural error.

The arguments used to support WMC's unblock were the precise opposite of the arguments presented in favor of WMC's blocks of others while blatantly involved.

However, there was a recent case, where A Man In Black (T-C-L-K-R-D) was desysopped for an involved block, even though he immediately went to a noticeboard with it. However, in this case there was serious long-term dispute, and AMIB should have known better; and the block was only contributory. I counselled him to immediately and formally recuse, and he did so, but it wasn't enough.

With WMC blocking me for violation of the community ban from Cold fusion (the first block, before the RfAr), I never raised the issue at the time because it was trivial; it shouldn't have been him, as ArbComm found -- AFAIK -- and a neutral admin might not have blocked for a harmless edit -- that was actually the precedent at that point --, but the block was only for 24 hours, and there was a basis for it, the ban.

The real problem was that after the community ban expired, he continued to insist on his right to maintain the ban on his own initiative. So the RfAr was over continued recusal failure in spite of explicit assertion of involvement in dispute, and ArbComm made its decision on desysopping based primarily on WMC's insanely stubborn block of me during the case; being adverse parties in an accepted RfAr is about as blatant a proof of "involvement in a dispute" as can be imagined.

Under IAR, however, which is policy, and absent blatant involvement, admins should act, and be protected for acting, according to their own best judgment; they are required, I suggest, to notify the community for immediate review whenever they act in a situation where appearance of involvement might exist. They are required to abstain from action, and instead request assistance, as would any other involved or concerned editor, wherever they should reasonably know that they are, in fact, involved.

[Moulton]

Sominex dealers should be afraid. Very afraid.

[Abd]

Sominex dealers should be afraid. Very afraid.

I always place a short sell order for GlaxoSmithKline stock before writing a tome here. You don't think I do it for my health, do you? They also make anti-anxiety meds, so it's two birds with one tome.

[Chindog]

However, there is an example very recently where he admitted something. I sent him an email about an obvious sock of Yellowbeard (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Cordyceps2009 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and he put up a notice at AN/I about it, noting that it was from a banned editor (me), but admitting that the suspicion was "worth investigating."

Why would anybody email a person who doesn't want anything to do with them? Are you autistic spectrum?

Why have you not slinked away? The cab ran over you, Rick. Can I call you Rick? You are the Rick(shaw) that swerved in front of the Cab(al), then got run over, so Rick seem appropriate. The Cab lost a headlight, Rick lost his consciousness for three months, as happens between cabs and ricks. Little floaty birds still circle but Rick is out cold.

Rick, what is your fascination with harassing JzG?