JzG at ArbComm again, same old same old? Options

[Abd]

I finally got around to filing an appeal on my cold fusion topic ban. Writing it, I could see, easily, why I'd abandoned Wikipedia instead of immediately appealing. I only filed this one because I'd seen the way a Nobel laureate was treated, a few days ago, on this same subject.

(Brian Josephson, who also has that WP user name. He was so offended by routine WP editor behavior, the anti-fringe claque, that he had started raving about an oil company conspiracy. I discussed this with him extensively by email, and he backed down. But we might have seen a headline: Wikipedia Bans Nobel Prize Winner. The process had started.)

Request for clarification Permanent link.

JzG responded, with the most dense, POV-pushing personal attack I've seen in a long time from him. I'm not sure he's actually lying, because he may believe what he thinks, but his thinking is radically disconnected from what actually happened, and he asserts it all as if it's obvious fact, no evidence needed. My guess is that this is quite how he remembers things. He remembers that he was Right, and Abd was Wrong but kept beating this dead horse. Then he fills in some details.

He still thinks he's right about copyright violation, for example, when that argument has been rejected everywhere it was actually considered by neutral editors. And others repeat his position, because it helps them keep out the convenience links that allow people to quickly check sources. It's pure POV-pushing, JzG would come up with six reasons to blacklist lenr-canr.org, they would all be dismantled, that was done in excruciating detail at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, with almost 100% consensus, participation by experienced editors, including an arb, and yet he'd later cheerfully remove links -- explicitly approved by an admin, that's what whitelisting required -- based on "copyvio web site", and so would his clique.

I didn't appeal before this because I'd developed a sense of futility, it was just Too Damned Hard to penetrate the fog of lies, repeated over and over, just to get a snippet of text in or to balance an article.

Writing the appeal, I got it again. I was left, after spending a full day boiling it down, with Too Many Words. I could have spent another day, but it just wasn't worth it. It's only a damn web site, and I have real work to do, of far more significance. One arbitrator has already commented that he agrees with Guy more than me, and I doubt that fewer words would have been more effective.

If he is typical, ready to judge when I'm certain he hasn't reviewed the evidence and considered the arguments, based only on immediate appearance, and agreeing with a blatant ad hominem argument, I wouldn't want to be any part of Wikipedia. I already knew that some arbs were like this, maybe most, so, the question is, are there any left who aren't?

My original cold fusion topic ban was based on evidence provided by Enric Naval, cited without apparently being carefully read, because one of the items cited, as if it was about me, was actually EN's opinion, presented in the Fringe Science arbitration, where he argued against the position that ArbComm took in its decision. It was written before I ever edited Cold fusion. So ArbComm, in banning me, cited evidence that had nothing to do with me, except as an argument EN was presenting, that ArbComm had previously rejected. I brought this up at the time on an RfAr Talk page. It was ignored.

Probably too many words.

Finding consensus, especially through writing, takes a lot of words, that's a known fact. (Skilled facilitation can reduce this, but not eliminate it.) If decisions are to be based on consensus, you need full discussion. However, if decisions are to be based on ad hoc, low-discussion local-majority rule, i.e., mob rule, sound bites are what you want. Polemic. That's what the arb is approving, that's what actual decisions, many of them, encourage.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Heat]

Here's another reason to remove JzG's bit, the guy's a vandal.

Len Stirling is a well known former politician in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was leader of the Liberal Party in the province in the 1980s and, as such, served as Leader of the Opposition in the Newfoundland legislature.

I was surprised, therefore, to find that there was no article on him in Wikipedia and even more surprised that to find that there used to be an article but it was deleted without so much as an AfD by JzG. His rationale?

"G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: No sources, disparaging of another living individual, no evidence of actual notability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=edit&redlink=1

Fortunately, there's a mirror of the article here: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/len+stirling/en-en/

Now JzG appears to be right that the article requires sources (but wrong in claiming there were none) but that's easily fixed. But he's dead wrong when he says it was an "attack page", there is no personal attack on the subject in it and absolutely wrong when he says there is "no evidence of actual notability". Stirling was the leader of the opposition for heaven's sake.

Does JzG just go around deleting perfectly fixable articles on a whim or is he a vandal?

[NuclearWarfare]

Do you not know what the word "or" means?

[EricBarbour]

Do you not know what the word "or" means?

I hope you're not defending Guy. He's really, profoundly not worth it.

[thekohser]

Do you not know what the word "or" means?

I hope you're not defending Guy. He's really, profoundly not worth it.

Nuke was making a joke... that Guy Chapman is so clueless about what he should be doing on Wikipedia, that his work amounts to vandalism. That's how I read it, anyway.