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: Tue 15th September 2009, 12:13am

[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: Tue 15th September 2009, 1:45am

[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."