User talk:Abd

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, it has become necessary that this page be semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

RfC on my conduct relevant to my block on August 11

A user-space RfC on my conduct as relating to my block on August 11, 2008, has been proceeding at a glacial pace, and appears ready to determine a conclusion on the first issue, whether or not I had behaved as charged in the initial warning. Comment from all users is welcome. The RfC summary page is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, but discussion and comment is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block.

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

File:Brain 090407.jpg

Before reading User talk:Abd

WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.

After reading User talk:Abd

After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Slime mold (see illustration).

Caution is advised.

Cold fusion

How does your last post on cold fusion advance the article. Weighting sources is an important subject that comes up over and over on the cold page. Not all journals are equal. I trust you understand the point made concerning parapsychology and I also trust you are aware most scientists don't consider parapsychology a science. You can pick a philosophical fight over this conclusion some place other than the cold fusion page. The talk page has enough relevant controversy as it is. Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring up parapsychology, Phil153 did. The article on the face appears to be a history of the field of Parapsychology, which exists and is of interest to psychologists, obviously. My point was that to dismiss an entire publisher (Springer-Verlag) based on an article appearing with parapsychology in the name is a bit extreme. Surely it depends on what the article actually says! Further, peer-reviewed journals are free to publish papers that contradict general consensus; if they were not, general consensus could never change, could it?

Absolutely, all journals aren't equal. However, when we get into the business of deciding which journal is better than which other one, when they both qualify as reliable source, we are entering dangerous territory, infested with opportunities for POV to fester. In the present case, without even seeing the article, without researching the journal or the publisher, it was dismissed as unreliable. The topic of Cold fusion has suffered from a shortage of review articles ("Secondary sources") in peer-reviewed science journals. Okay, here is a review article, in a general physics journal, with a reputable publisher (largest publisher in China, and the Frontier series is apparently supported by the Chinese government, and I'm quite sure that their goal is to do it right, to establish a reputation for China for serious science research and publishing, but ... problem is, from the abstract, it looks like it might support the existence of Cold fusion. But, we should note, the DOE 2004 report encouraged further research and publication. It's happening. But the primary sources, such as the SPAWAR research, haven't been much reviewed. The journal in which they appear has been similarly denigrated as not being sufficiently capable of reviewing an article on cold fusion. Except that this is actually nonsense, the journal in question is published by the Max Planck Society, which has ample resources, without question.

It's a long-term pattern, OMCV, of tenaciously challenging sources which don't support the conclusions of some editors. Those conclusions happen to match the "general scientific consensus," which is actually not defined. (That's a problem with the Fringe Science Arbitration. There is no body that issues "General Scientific Consensus.") What is the consensus of physicists who have been following the recent literature? It might be quite different from the "general consensus."

So here comes notice, from me, that I found a review paper meeting, on the face, WP:RS. Immediately, before we have even seen a copy of the paper, it's impeached, "it's not even a clean drinking vessel." I haven't asserted any edits from it, just brought it to the attention of editors of this article. How can it be said that the article contradicts what is in "better" journals, when no text has been asserted that would show contradiction? I don't think that there are any journals out there that have said that what is reported in Frontiers of Physics in China is impossible; the DOE said, in 1989 and in 2004, that evidence for cold fusion "was not conclusive." But those reviews definitely did not consider all the evidence. Here comes a review that may consider, more thoroughly, recent research. I don't know yet, and certainly Phil153 doesn't know. I'm not claiming that we should erase the article and information about general scientific consensus, but that we should at least report what is in reliable sources, and how we balance them is another matter. I am not arguing any "conclusion" about parapsychology, except the implied conclusion that a publisher is impeached and a journal impeached because a journal article has the word "parapsychology" in the name.

Can anything neutral and acceptable by scientific consensus be written about "parapsychology?" If not, why do we have an article on Parapsychology? And if so, how could one promote an assumption of unreliability based on the name in the title of a paper? --Abd (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll remind you that both peer-review material and Wikipedia cover many topics that aren't subject to scientific interest and/or consensus; such as parapsychology. Furthermore parapsychology was used to make the point that a peer-reviewed Springer journal does not automatically equal a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Springer is interested in making money any place they can and publishes on a LOT of stuff. It may be true that the article you mentioned should be considered. But I strongly disagree that we should not get into the business of deciding which journals are better and which are worse. This is a paramount concern in academic research and I would hope that Wikipedia approaches academic quality. Weighting sources does not subject us to POV, rather its necessary to find the best NPOV otherwise all POV will be rendered equal and fringe junk will flourish. I had no intent to challenge your review; based on your post I had no idea that was what you were concerned about. Your are correct that interest in sources is a long-term pattern. It directly reflects the scientific status of cold fusion. Many scientists consider cold fusion a pseudoscience or at the very least a pathological science. Even if they aren't pathological much of the publishing by the cold fusion faction has speciated itself form the mainstream. So any source that isn't published in a well respected main stream journal (which includes many Springer journals) is subject to skepticism. You would do better to try to learn from Phil post than attack him ignorantly. Finally defending parapsychology will make you look like nothing more than a crank.--OMCV (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by people who don't know the field, and unless we create and use an expert review board, or actually start implementing the implications of WP:CONSENSUS (which would require respect for expert opinion), it won't "approach academic quality.". "Many scientists," unfortunately, includes many who concluded that cold fusion was bunk twenty years ago, and they stopped looking at the newer evidence. and there is reliable source on this phenomenon, i.e., that "pathological science" in this field is not limited to one side. Further, the alleged "consensus" on cold fusion is mostly determined from reports that arent in peer-reviewed literature. I called the 2007 review in FPC the "Holy Grail," because it is likely what has been needed for quite a while, a review in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal (as distinct from a specialty journal like Condensed Matter Nuclear Science). The conclusions of that review, we shouldn't prejudge. Absent contradiction with other mainstream peer-reviewed journals, we don't need to determine which journal is "best."

No one is suggesting that skepticism isn't appropriate. However, a priori rejection of sources based on a highly jaundiced view of the *conclusions* of a review paper is circular. It would entrench and institutionalize, in this case, a position formed twenty years ago, and would run quite contrary to the conclusions of the 2004 DOE review, which really should be read in detail, rather than only in biased summaries. This field is not fringe science; fringe science doesn't have the kind of support from among DOE reviewers that this field has. DOE concluded that "evidence was not conclusive." That is a far cry from rejecting the field as fringe, and given the entrenched attitudes, well documented as such, it is entirely possible that this third consisted of the reviewers who actually investigated the recent evidence. (Note, I'm not impeaching the reviewers, simply noting that given the heavy prejudice in the field, well-known, that level of consideration is high.)

Now, if you are not willing to read what I write carefully, OMCV, please stay away from my Talk page. Claiming that I was "attacking him ignorantly," was uncivil, in itself. I wasn't attacking him, I was warning him. He is heading down a road that has produced topic bans, and ArbComm is watching. What I'm insisting on is that we follow consensus process, not that we favor one side or another, and that we review and use sources without regard to the conclusions that someone might make from them. We determine reliable source using WP:RS, and not as wikilawyers to exclude, but as guides to notability and for balance. If a source is reliable, even if it isn't as "reputable" as another, it is usable, and if what it shows is of importance, excluding it because some of us conclude that there is a contradiction is making a judgment that should be left to the readers instead of being made by us.

I'm not ignorant on this subject, and I didn't defend parapsychology. It's fairly clear that you are reading what I've written with a conclusion already in your mind.

Phil made the point that the involvement of Springer didn't automatically equal a "peer-reviewed scientific journal." No claim had been made that it did. However, the evidence that Phil presented for the point was the existence of articles returned on a search for "parapsychology," without any regard for the actual content. That is a totally unwarranted conclusion, and is an example of conclusions first, evidence later. He was looking for a way to discredit a source before any specific citation was introduced. The journal in question, Frontiers of Physics in China, is peer-reviewed. There is no reasonable doubt about that. It's mainstream, i.e., a general physics journal, we have sources saying "the best in China." If we have two reviews, covering the same material, that come to contradictory conclusions, we would have to determine how to balance that. However, we don't have that, at least not yet.

When there is conflict in reliable sources, and my claim is that FPC is a reliable source, then we don't normally exclude either one, we balance them, reporting both with attribution and appropriate context. What is necessary for NPOV is that all -- or at least a large majority of -- reasonable editors will agree that the text is neutral. Consensus is the proof of NPOV, and this has been too little understood. When one side insists that its views are NPOV, tenaciously, refusing to compromise, to find ways to also satisfy the other sides, we have a "situation."

There is another issue lurking here. What is the article Cold fusion about? Is it a science article? Above, you seem to claim that Parapsychology isn't a "science" article. Okay, why, then, would we consider Cold fusion a science article? In fact, there are at least two subjects involved: the science, that is, the chemistry and physics involved, and the social history. There are reliable sources on both; the former would generally be peer-reviewed scientific journals, the latter would generally involve newspapers, magazines, and books, often books by nonscientists, i.e., reporters and other writers. Trying to stuff it all into one article, then, invites debates over the science to afflict our reporting of the social history. Cold fusion is a popular name, it's not what the field is called by those doing research in it. It's an appropriate name for the social history article. --Abd (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you confused my well intentioned observations and warning with incivility. Oh well. I think you have a very good point that cold fusion deals with both scientific information and historical information. In most science articles we ignore most of the history since its not very important. In the case of cold fusion there is more history than scientific information at the moment. I also think you might want to reconsider exactly how much credit the DOE is giving cold fusion. They aren't exactly pouring funds into cold fusion research even if they are leaving the door cracked. P&F were taken so seriously because cold fusion is a really reasonable idea. It seems that we just haven't found the right conditions. But cold fusion also attracts con artists, the delusional, and cranks like nothing else. P&F, Rusi Taleyarkhan, and John Bockris are good examples of the sort of people who have made the field more difficult for the well intentioned researches.

I don't really have a problem with most of what you said. But I still think its important to weight sources. The "Brunswick Times Record" and "The New York Times" are both newspapers but I would trust each newspaper with different information. Journals are similar. "Frontiers of Physics in China" is young, not listed in ISI web, whether it turns out to be a serious journal remains to be seen. I won't bet heavily on it. My original critique was based off the assumption you support most fringe positions with respect to things like cold fusion, parapsychology... If thats not who you are good luck.--OMCV (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would bet heavily on the journal. Do you realize who is behind this journal? It's part of a series of "Frontiers of [topic] in China," published by the largest publisher in China, the 45th largest in the world. The intention is clearly for it to be world-class, the government is involved, and when the Chinese go for world-class, they have the resources to do it. They are working with Thomson Reuters, which is the largest publisher in the world. Which, by the way, owns ISI web.

I find it fascinating that you'd assumed I'd support "most fringe positions."

You are surprised that a comment which incorporates "ignorant" would be taken as uncivil? Thanks, however, for backing off sufficiently to notice that I might actually be saying something. Some people aren't capable of that, once these "assumptions" are in play.

How much credit the DOE is giving cold fusion? Sufficient credit to hold another review in 2004. Clearly, the majority were not convinced, but there is quite a distance between categorical rejection, which some skeptics would have us read the DOE report as being, and "pouring funds into cold fusion research."

Cold fusion attracts cranks for lots of reasons. It's possible to do cold fusion research in a basement or garage, and the potential for enormous return on investment is there; con artists can pretend this or that, attract funding, and disappear. Nobody reputable, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, is claiming enough power output to make it a commercial application, it's entirely possible that it's more efficient than muon-catalyzed fusion but still not practical, the conditions under which it occurs could be entirely too sensitive. What does it cost to fabricate a palladium electrode, mangle it thoroughly with the electrolyis, then recover the palladium to fabricate a new one? And would such recycled palladium still work? Apparently the P-F effect is sensitive to production batch for the palladium; some experimenters have run series of experiments with different production batches and some batches show the effect far more than others. However, co-electrolysis seems to bypass this problem, i.e, the palladium starts out in solution and is plated on the cathode at the same time as deuterium gas is being generated, so the palladium is immediately saturated with deuterium.

Once again, the question of comparison of journals is a red herring, at this point. If you have two reviews on the same subject and they appear to conflict, then some consideration of prestige may well be in order, but it's tricky. My point is that this is a place where POV bias can thrive. I would not go to the other extreme and argue that we should "teach the controversy," as if the sides were equal. But the CF field is tricky. It's a place where the "scientific consensus" we allege may consist of people not involved in the field, not aware of the recent research and the pitfalls involved. In any case, we will be looking at the reports, and where there are multiple reliable sources on a topic, the effort should be made to harmonize them, i.e., to see if it is possible that they are both right.... --Abd (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have two reviews on the same subject and they appear to conflict, then some consideration of prestige may well be in order the question of which was published on the most reliable source is what is going to solve the question. See also WP:UNDUE. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Basic legal principle: "Testimony is presumed true unless controverted." I was involved in tenacious religious debates for years as a usenet group moderator. One of the techniques that I used was to presume that both "sides" were right. What could we come up with if we make that assumption? When we have two reliable sources that "appear to conflict," it's quite possible that the conflict isn't in the source, but in us. We are drawing conclusions, and we draw different conclusions from the two sources. Now, clearly, sometimes there is genuine conflict, that is, one source controverts the other. But that is not what we should assume from the outset. Usually, when reliable sources appear to conflict, they are actually reporting on different things. This will become more clear, I suspect, when material from the Frontiers article starts to show up in the article. But I haven't seen anything more than an abstract and the first page, so far. The abstract was enough to raise alarms from the skeptical side, but the devil is in the details. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just email me a copy when you get a hold of the study. I want to see if they making some reasonable claim on some small studies that have been done since the DOE 2004 review in research related to detecting the effect, or if they are making some extraordinary claim about what was already reviewed. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only situation in which the source may be useful. The DOE review is based on a series of individual contributions which are documented. The 2004 DOE review concluded much the same, the review claims, as the 1989 review, and I think this is accurate. The scientists who worked on both knew that there was no proof that, for example, the Pons-Fleischmann effect was bogus. I.e., can electrolysis under the P-F conditions produce true excess heat, heat without a classical chemical explanation. Rather, various hypotheses were advanced as to what might explain the heat without new physics. The general conclusion was that the evidence for truly anomalous excess heat was "not conclusive," and that, therefore, we could not and should not assume new physics; however, sane science at that point suggests further research, hence the DOE reviews suggested this. They don't, for example, suggest further research in parapsychology or other true fringe fields. In order to determine if there is conflict between the two sources, the DOE report and the FPC paper, we would need to look deeper than conclusions. A good review paper will point to the evidence for conclusions, not merely make conclusions. The DOE report isn't a peer-reviewed paper, it is, rather, the product of a review panel that works in a different way; it is a largely political effort, focused on determining the appropriateness of large-scale funding, because of the obvious implications if CF works. They concluded that it was not, but, in 2004 in particular, and I think in 1989, they did encourage specific funding consideration under existing programs. This was not a "fringe science" determination. I'd agree with it, in fact, and my suspicion is that at this point, were a new review to be done, the DOE conclusion would be shifted toward some kind of acceptibility for the field, and especially for acceptance of the F-P effect as being real. It was already close to being there in 2004. "Real F-P effect" doesn't necessarily translate into new physics, perhaps there is still some classically acceptable explanation (and the F-P effect does not contradict established physics. Conservation of energy isn't violated. The Coulomb barrier isn't absolute, i.e., besides high energy, there are other ways known to get around it, such as with muon-catalyzed fusion. The lack of gamma rays or high neutron flux negates only the hypothesis that the fusion, if it is taking place, is classical fusion of the kind seen otherwise at high energies, or even as takes place in muon-catalyzed fusion. Now, if the two reviews, the 2007 paper in FPC and the 2004 DOE review, covered the same material, and drew contradictory conclusions, then we would have a true conflict, and we would be juxtaposing the solitary opinion of a single author and analyst, with the opinion of an editorial board that the paper was reasonably sound, sufficient for publication in a journal that is clearly aiming for high standards, with the opinion of a presumably competent review panel. At the very least, this would still suggest, possibly, citing both sources, and making the differences explicit. I.e., something like "A review panel composed of blah blah experts, convened by the DOE for the purpose of blah blah, concluded blah blah, however, a review paper published in Frontiers of Physics in China, a new journal founded ... and supported by blah blah editorial board, concluded that blah blah." What such a statement does is to expose the basis on which we, as editors, might conclude that one source was more reliable than the other. This kind of reporting is exactly how we convert POV debates into better text. What some POV pushers seem to assume, though, is that readers are dumb and easily misled, that such text would be "excess detail." However, the only way to avoid "excess detail" is to decide on which detail is important, and, when a subject is complex, that means a determination to support on POV over another, which is only justifiable when the rejected POV is truly fringe, which cold fusion does not approach. I.e., there have been and are reputable scientists, knowledgeable in the field, who accept it, and many more who think that it hasn't been established but is worthy of further investigation. That phenomenon is absent with true fringe fields. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't give the same space and/or prominence to minority views, and very minoritary views may not get any space at all, see WP:UNDUE, and that's compared by its prominence in reliable sources. If you compare the prominence of the DOE review with the prominence of that journal.... well.... there is simply no comparison... The DOE review was very very VERY prominent (see this Washington Post article written in 2004 before it had released its results, and see the expectation and how everyone agrees on the tremendous importance of getting a positive review).

Of course we don't, Enric. Did I claim we should? However, what is a "minority view?" How is it defined? By votes in a review panel in 2004, compared to RS publications in the next five years? I'm not assuming some particular answer, but you do appear to be assuming one, I would guess. And now you seem to be judging a scientific matter by what appears in the media. This is actually what we have RS on, decrying this happening in 1989. I have no doubt about the prominence of the DOE review. I make no assertion about the prominence of the Frontiers of Physics in China paper, it seems to have mostly escaped notice here. Rothwell of lenr-canr.org was completely unaware of it. But that doesn't make it unimportant, it merely means that it has been overlooked, and possible that what has been said many times is true: current research and review in the field is being ignored. That's a fact that we can and should have in the article, because we have RS for it (at least we have sources for that being the case in the past, this example merely shows that the situation continues). Etc. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was already discussed at Talk:Cold fusion that the 2004 DOE review was a damned good and relevant reliable source, and that it was an aceptable source for the mainstream view on cold fusion. I'm not going to enter that discussion again. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric, Wikipedia does not revolve around what discussions I am willing to enter, you are willing to enter, or discussions any individual is unwilling to enter. Decisions are made and supported here by consensus, ideally genuine consensus, or, short of that and provisionally, by rough consensus. I have not suggested that the DOE report isn't an "acceptable source for the mainstream view," at all, though there are details which might need further examination. The DOE report is generally reliable as a report of the mainstream view in 2004. It's five years later! What is the mainstream view now? The DOE report was based on receiving reports from the cold fusion community and review of these reports by independent experts. If we have a new review, published in reliable source, that fills in the cracks, so to speak, that is not necessarily a contradiction of the DOE report. When that report stated that the evidence "was not convincing," and it also suggested that there were anomalies remaining, worthy of investigation, it was referring to the situation at the time of the compilation of the report. We should be very careful about assuming contradiction when it is possible to harmonize sources. The problem comes when a reliable source is excluded because it allegedly contradicts another reliable source, perhaps considered more reliable, but this "contradiction" is simply the opinion of some editors here, itself unsupported by reliable source.

We have the first page of the FPC review. It's been asserted that this is contradictory, but I saw no specific contradiction there. It's apparent to me that we have editors reasoning from conclusions. We need to explore the basis of our various views, not merely assert them tendentiously. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that there was already discussion on the DOE reliability, and that consensus was already reached, so I'm not going to enter it again when I strongly suspect that a) there are no new arguments b) it's going to end with the same conclusion.

And saying "It's five years later" is totally useless unless you can show evidence that the consensus has changed since then (notice that the consensus stayed the same between 1989 and 2004, and that's 15 years!) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And it only gets worse when it also contradicts the other sources that I listed above. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose that the FPC paper analyzes the continuing research, as well as the old research, and shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the F-P effect is real, there is anomalous heat, not explainable by the various proposed explanations used in the past to dismiss it. Would this "contradict the other sources?" If so, how? Please be very specific. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I will judge it when I can read it, and probably after asking some knowledgeable user to comment on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Not a bad idea, postponing judgment until the evidence is available! As to "knowledgeable user," whom do you have in mind? --Abd (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had no one specific in mind, I would probably first wait to see what the usual suspects say on the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reindent.) I had the opportunity to look at the offending paper. I won't comment on the content because I don't feel I'm qualified even though I've actively worked in closely related fields. I did think I would be worth including this paper's reference list. For anyone who is unfamiliar with review papers most have between 200 and 500 references. This list references would never fly for a review in an ACS or RSC journal. I also expect that APS includes more references in their reviews. Not to mentions more than half the citations are from talks or websites. This is very bad academic practice and is probably worse than many self publications produced by cranks. If it was related to my research I wouldn't waste my time reading the review. (In interest of full disclosure; I thought I remembered there being 10 references so I might have cut one off when I copied and pasted them into an e-mail. In addition I've removed portions of the website addresses to get this through the spam filters.)--OMCV (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

References

1. Toni Feder, Physics Today, January 2005: 31 [Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore]

2. Peter L. Hagelstein, Michael C. H. McKubre, David J. Nagel, Talbot A. Chubb, and J. Hekman, New physical effect in metal deuterides, in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

3. Brian D Josephson, Pathological Disbelief, http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004JosephsonB-LindauLecture.pdf

4. Jones S. E., Keerey F. W., Johnson A. C., et al., Neutron Emissions from Metal Deuterides, 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 2003, Cambridge, MA, USA
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEneutronemi.pdf

5. Jones S. E., Keerey F. W., Johnson A.C., et al., Charged-Particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides, 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 2003, Cambridge, MA, USA

6. Kasagi J., Ohtsuki T., Ishi K., et al., J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 1995, 64 (3): 777−783

7. Takahashi A., M.Maruta, Ochiai K., et al., Phys. Lett., 1999, A255 (1): 89−97

8. Arata Y. and Zhang Y. C., Proc. Acad. Ser. B., 1999, 75: 281−290

9. Arata Y. and Zhang Y. C., 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 2003, Cambridge, MA, USA

thanks, OCMV. I'm not satisfied; you have established the this may not be a comprehensive review, but I'll still want to see the paper myself. Do you know how I could see a copy? As to blacklisted sites, just remove the http:// from them and you can put up everything else; any reader can then just paste the URL into a browser and normally it will supply the http://. This is the complete set of references? It's a bit strange, for sure. By the way, I see references in RS papers and other RS, not uncommonly, to sources we would not allow here; it's within the discretion of an author; as an even more extreme example, "unpublished communication from so-and-so" are not uncommon. I'm still convinced that the paper is RS, indeed, but your report, if accurate, does cast doubt on the quality. --Abd (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I commend you for doubting the reliability of my report. I agree there are exception to the citation rules but they are usually a small fraction of the total citations. Perhaps 1-3 odd citations in a paper with +30 citations. I don't have a good recommendation on how you can get the paper without access to a campus computer network/library or equivalent. As a rule I don't do anything wiki related at work nor do I e-mail. This is to maintain my anonymity, I wouldn't want to damage my reputation/career/funding opportunities by having my writing correlated with CF. Those outside of science are free to question to what extent CF is fringe, for me its a practical reality. I wish you luck in getting a copy of the review.--OMCV (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A question: Doesn't it disturb you that you couldn't participate in discussions of CF, with appropriate caution, without damaging your career? I've seen this reported many times, and it strikes me as absolutely chilling, and generally lowers my trust in the scientific process, and leads me to think that Wikipedia should be very careful about assumptions about "scientific consensus." Once that kind of effective censorship has arisen, whatever consensus appears to exist is a false one, and it would take extraordinary measures, such as secret ballot, to discover true consensus. As you know, no mechanism is in place for this.

Now, I know it would involve a small investment, but a copy of the paper could be mailed to me, Abd ulRahman Lomax, 40 Fort St., Northampton, MA 01040. I would remove the copy, discard the envelope, and make a small donation to a charity of your choice. Your anonymity would not be compromised, I have a terrible memory (it's age-related) so even if I notice where the postmark is, my memory, if any, would be unreliable. In any case, thanks for your time already, it's valuable and appreciated.

I've seen this happen in another field, with low carbohydrate diet and the contradiction to it, the hypothesis that fat causes heart disease, (for years, it was about all fat, but which became saturated fat with a little more sophistication) all without adequate experimental support and, in fact, the contrary. Butter consumption, for example, was not correlated with increased heart disease. It's a bit ironic that the Bad Science here has been exposed by Gary Taubes considering his prior writing with respect to Cold fusion. For twenty years, it was practically impossible to write an article in a peer-reviewed journal that questioned the low-fat diet concept; public policy reasons were cited: allegedly, lowering fat would be, at worst, harmless, and, at best, would save millions of lives. So questioning the alleged scientific consensus -- which never was a scientific consensus, but was a political one that became generally accepted -- was considered dangerous and fringe, and diets based on drastic lowering of carbohydrates were labeled "fad diets." Even though there was, in fact, some very solid science behind them and they weren't new. (Classic treatment for diabetes, type two, before insulin: very low carb diet. Yet until this year, the American Diabetes Association was still recommending against low-carb diets because they were allegedly risk to heart health. Could the fact that diabetics on low carb diets need less insulin, and sometimes none, have anything to do with this, considering that the major supporter of the ADA has been the drug industry?) Taubes doesn't claim this, but it is quite possible that the bad science cost millions of premature deaths. Low fat diets, in practice, become high carbohydrate diets, and Taubes convincingly argues that high carb diets are generally behind the "diseases of civilization," which include obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer. (Cancer is not exclusively caused by carbs in the diet, but precancerous cells require copious glucose and insulin, I understand, and high carb diets supply plenty of these -- i.e., glucose levels spike, insulin is produced to keep the glucose levels below toxicity, insulin then continues to act, taking glucose levels too low, causing hunger and ... thus goes the cycle -- ; the cells can then multiply more rapidly, increasing the opportunities for the mutations to occur that result in cancer.)

The tide began to rise with low-carb diets at the beginning of this century. Simultaneously with increased adoption of low-carb diets by millions of people, the research started to break through. For example, in spite of claims made for twenty years to the contrary, high-fat diets don't produce blood lipid levels that would cause heart risk to be increased, when they are examined in more detail than the old total cholesterol measure (i.e., considering HDL and HDL/LDL ratio, triglycerides, etc). When compared, the Atkins diet (low carb, moderate protein, high fat) produced better blood lipids than low-fat diets. Plus the whole cholesterol connection with heart disease is problematic. It's still a mess, with public advice being maintained that is contrary to the latest evidence, and, of course, there is a truly enormous business based on giving expensive statins with serious side effects, routinely, to people who may have, in fact, no increased risk of heart disease -- or who could be more effectively and more cheaply treated with diet -- and who don't live longer as a result of the drug..... Ah, don't get me started, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Back to CF, it seems to me that the FPC article isn't a general review article, given the sources cited, it is more likely a narrow review, possibly just reporting some common conditions in a few experiments that reported high reproduction of the F-P effect. They don't cite the SPAWAR work, which is remarkable in itself, since to my knowledge, the SPAWAR technique of co-deposition has the highest reported rates of reliability, and excess heat begins immediately. I have my own questions about the SPAWAR work, oddities. For example, they show massively damaged CR-39. Fine. Why did they leave it in there so long? Massively damaged CR-39 looks more like chemical damage. However, they've redeemed it with the work showing clear signs of neutrons on the back side of the CR-39. That's not chemical damage. It's not background radiation, it's associated with the cathode. It's not corona burning, which wouldn't happen on the back side, besides the other problems with assuming corona discharge in a conductive liquid! WTF is it, if not nuclear radiation? (And there are also experiments where the CR-39 was outside the cell, behind a mylar window, or in the cell and protected by mylar, and these show the lowered level of radiation expected from the intervening plastic, but still there, clearly, way above background. There was older work with CR-39 and electrolysis, showing CR-39 damage when suspended in the cell above the electrolysis, in the gas flow, shielded from the actual cell. Shanahan, in our Talk page, provided a link to this research as if it showed a problem with the CR-39 (since it wasn't next to the cathode), but, in fact, what it showed, most likely, was emission of radionucleotides at low levels, produced by transmutations in the cell.

It's starting to fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, if anyone is looking. But I am personally dedicated to NPOV above any personal opinions, and I don't generally let my opinions become beliefs. Until I came across a suspicious blacklisting, of lenr-canr.org, two months ago, I had practically no opinion about Cold Fusion except a general concept that it had been rejected twenty years ago, when I'd been very interested for a short time, and lost interest when, it seemed from what I was reading, there was far too little replication. So in the last two months or so I've been coming up to speed, and the field looks very different now. I'm not about to assert unreliable sources or to do anything other than insist, probably, that reliable source is reliable source, and generally what can be shown by reliable source should not be excluded from articles. There is a problem with undue weight, sometimes, but I've much more often seen undue weight as an argument advanced by editors with a POV, some kind of "majority opinion," but it is quite possible to be clear about the general weight of scientific opinion without excluding what's in reliable sources.

And, of course, there is the approach of forking the article into two articles, and one would cover the history, with sources being newspapers, magazine articles, as well as scientific reviews, and an article on the science, which would be based on peer-reviewed journals. What science? In the field it is called Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, not Cold Fusion, and that isn't merely an attempt to cover up the connection. The reference to Condensed Matter was there, as I recall, in the first Jones paper.

And I just blather on; it's part of how I learn. I stick my foot in my mouth, and that's how I learn quickly. Feet taste different. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have good points especially when it comes to the subjects of diet. I prefer minimally processed and traditionally prepared food. I think its a crime that US cows eat things other than grass. More importantly I avoid new drugs and chemical additives. I know the science isn't there to prove they're dangerous but I don't consume fake sugars. Science is intended to replace tradition but it can take science a while to offer better solutions.

In terms of your level of trust in the scientific process its likely warranted. It is important to have science represented accurately as a human affair. Since its a human affair we have to do the best we can. This means judging material on limited information and general reputation. As I've said CF is tainted for very good reason. The next big piece to the puzzle is public resources. When ever I consider public resources I remind myself that they didn't have to be collected in the first place; but once collected they could be used for anything ranging from feeding the poor, to building our nations infrastructure, to providing bonuses for bankers. If we use those resources for science they should go to research that has the potential to result in something of value for the society that finances. This doesn't mean we don't do basic research but we do it with the knowledge that it will likely result in technology. I know many projects that I would prefer to see funded before CF (including my own). In a world of infinite resources people could work on whatever interests them. But... As far as your critique of scientific consensus goes I don't think ballots would help the problem. The truth is not something to vote over. I think the concept of "consensus" has some intrinsic flaws that becomes apparent whenever there's a controversy. The biggest problem with the idea of "consensus" might be that 95% of individuals don't care either way about most issues. Even with these flaws I think "consensus" is a valuable idea.

It terms of protecting my own identity/reputation. It doesn't bother me. This is a hobby for me something well outside my professional activities. I split my time on Wikipedia between reading the science reference desk, adding some technical content related to electrochemisty/catalysis/inorganic chemistry, climbing subject matters, and science fraud (extra-scientific controversy). I count CF little better than a water fuelled car. A diligent scientist is committed to discourse with other scientists of similar training through peer-review process. This is what I'm paid to do. Once a scientists interest drifts to debating the public its easy to assume they have lost interest in serious science. For example, even though Dawkins defends science and explains scientific information to the public, I question how much OR he contributed to science after writing "The blind watchmaker". He could have done some substantial work, I don't know his field, but my instinct is that his time for original research was over. Just as I fault Dawkins I risk being faulted if I'm connected with CF. I'm sympathetic to this since it would be hard for one of my peers to differentiate this hobby from my professional activity without personal interactions.

Be careful that you don't want to conduct OR on Wikipedia. It looks like your pretty serious about the subject and it might be best if you took your interest to a venue that welcomed OR. I have yet to read anything that makes me think the bulk of individuals in mainstream science see CF as much more than a pariah. I think the article should reflect this even if it has to be altered in the years to come. E-mail me something through Wikipedia and I'll reply with a non-standard e-mail address.--OMCV (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, OMCV. I'm quite aware of WP:OR. There is no clear dividing line between searching for information and sources, analyzing these, and doing original research (i.e., original analysis of sources and the topic). My view is that in Talk, we can do this, we can report personal experiences, all that, we may express opinions, and we are not limited to what can go into articles. Further, my editorial behavior may be affected by my personal judgment, and my claim is that we generally have a better encyclopedia where people do this, while at the same time fully respecting community behavioral norms such as civility, avoidance of edit warring, seeking consensus, etc. As an example, if I know, from personal experience, that a fact is true, I'm not likely to take it out of an article. However, if I put it in an article myself, I may cn tag it myself if I don't have a source (but I'm still confident it's true, and particularly if it is well-known in a field).

You have erred in one thing. I'm quite interested in cold fusion, yes, but I don't expect to satisfy that interest on or with Wikipedia. I place NPOV above my personal interests, it's essential to me. NPOV can be very difficult to judge by oneself, for we all have biases; but a sign of true NPOV is that reasonable editors holding quite diverse points of view will agree on it. To people without much experience with consensus process, this can seem crazy, but it's been demonstrated again and again in environments where people share some common goal and where unity of purpose is important. We assume good faith, and much of the bad behavior on the project is not a result of bad faith, though it is often the result of failing to assume it for others.

Your opinion about "the bulk of individuals in mainstream science" may be true, but it should be qualified, or it is misleading. One of the defects of present social structures in many fields, and in the sciences in particular, is the lack of means of dynamically measuring consensus. The closest thing I know to a measure of consensus re cold fusion is the 2004 DOE report. 18 experts, anonymous, were chosen by the DOE to review the topic. There was far more support for cold fusion there than is typical for a supposedly fringe science. Further, when we represent a field on Wikipedia, where the field has shifted due to recent research, if we only report old reviews and rejections, but exclude more recent work and analysis that exists in reliable source, we do our readers a disservice, just as we would to them a disservice by biasing the article toward claims not yet generally accepted. We handle this with attribution and balance.

Now, what about Iwamura? What about the SPAWAR work? In each case it is possible to concoct some possible explanation that doesn't involve fusion, but what I've seen is that the explanations don't consider all the experimental data. For example, there are claims that Iwamura was misled by contaminants which just happen to show the same X-ray peaks. Fine, that's possible, though it appears rather unlikely. (I understand there is a conference paper on this, I'll be interested to see it. But why did the effect disappear when the diffusing gas was hydrogen instead of deuterium? Why did the same "mistakes" get made with both analysis techniques? Why was the Molybdenum isotopically anomalous, radically different from natural abundance, precisely as would appear if it were formed through fusion? At a certain point it becomes fairly obvious that the conclusion is driving the analysis. The "conclusion" is that fusion is impossible, and therefore there must be experimental error. It's an assumption, the bane of genuine science. What's clear to me is that the evidence is strong enough that there should be serious efforts to confirm or rule out fusion, expanding as necessary to discover a true consensus. There are now experiments with clear enough conditions, reliable results, and some confirmations. Iwamura's technique is difficult, but not something impossible to reproduce in labs that handle semiconductor fabrication.

As to SPAWAR, sure, the pitting of the CR-39 plastic can be attributed to chemical damage, perhaps some kind of chemical reaction or activity or the formation of dendrites or whatever at the electrode surface is causing the changes. Except: there is damage characteristic of radiation on the back side of the plastic (and it appears to be particularly characteristic of proton recoil from interaction with neutrons). There is radiation on the front side of plastic placed outside the electrolyte bath behind a plastic window, at reduced levels commensurate with the plastic thickness. And more. Oriani found radiation marks in the plastic when it was suspended above the reaction vessel with a shield between it and the other components. Many of these experiments have been run with ordinary water instead of heavy water: the results are either no signs of radiation, or low levels of radiation consistent with the percentage of D2O in ordinary water. And it goes on and on, OMCV. SPAWAR's work can be and has been confirmed without special equipment, it's relatively cheap. Instead of bulk palladium, it uses a little palladium salt (chloride?) There has been, as I recall reading, some problems with some batches or sources for CR-39, which certainly raises my hackles, but there are other means of detecting radiation that can and should be used as well.

For Wikipedia, we are dependent on how material is published as a guide to notability and reliability. We mostly avoid self-published material because of conflict of interest; when a publisher publishes someone else's material, and the publisher is in the business of selling books, or, if nonprofit, isn't just publishing that one book or one very narrow class of books, it shows investment and an expectation by the publisher that the material is of interest. We have clearly reliable source for some of the current research, we have conference papers (presentations) for much more, which is problematic because it isn't peer-reviewed, but it can be used under some circumstances. Now, if we look at recent published work, almost all of it favors cold fusion! There is a conundrum that I won't attempt to solve tonight, though there is, certainly, an obvious objection. But this obvious objection has a problem: it's not based on reliable source, it is synthesis or speculation (even if somewhat reasonable).

In the end, OMCV, we have one clear standard: consensus. With consensus or something approaching it, we can do almost anything here. Hence the importance of thorough consensus process, such that we don't just have someone repeating the antiCF mantras against others repeating the proCF mantras, but we go painstakingly through each detail to find agreement. It can be done, it just takes time. If NPOV is what we want, it must be done. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"...if we look at recent published work, almost all of it favors cold fusion!" Let me know when an upper tier research university produces a result that isn't mired in controversy. An even better demonstration would be a technology based on this science. When I read a scientific paper I don't assume the author knows what they are talking about I consider the evidence from my frame of reference. Iwamura might have something but I don't know his/her reputation, I don't even know their institutions reputation, so I doubt the validity of their data. There are only a few places on Wikipedia that we report result observed by a single lab. With that said I'm ok with it being in the CF page but it should be qualified. As far as national labs go, they produce some pretty wacky results sometimes. In many ways the national labs are far intellectually isolated than academics and I think they can go a little crazy. The scientific consensus is that CF is bunk. If you read pro-CF papers (I've thumbed through a couple) they often admit that this is the prevailing opinion. Now if you can produce a Science, Nature, PNAS, Chem Review, JACS, or equivalent paper that says CF is happening I'll reconsider my opinion. Have a good one.--OMCV (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles, OMCV. The standard for us is WP:RS, which does not mention "upper tier research university," rather it allows many different kinds of reliable sources that can be a basis for content. When there is conflict, questions of relative source quality can certainly arise, but they are usually best addressed by "reporting the controversy," with care not to present a minority report or unconfirmed one as if it were a majority or confirmed report. Obviously, everyone would like to have a "technology based on this science." It might be quite difficult. The conditions under which cold fusion appears to be occurring are fragile, it seems. It's been found how to get reliable excess heat, apparently, but that is still a far cry from practical energy generation or even from using it for heating! (But that is what the SPAWAR researchers patented, by the way.) Iwamura has been quoted here and there, the work is notable, but, as I've noted, there is a shortage of critical examination; Shanahan claimed in Talk for Cold fusion, back in December, that there is a paper presented at a conference that asserts problems with Iwamura's work, but it seems unlikely to me that it's going to actually impeach the work; but without seeing it, I obviously can't be sure. Shanahan's report, though, by itself, would be utterly inadequate. Too many coincidences involved.

Look, OMCV, there isn't any doubt that rejection of cold fusion is the "prevailing opinion." But that is not the same as saying that "The scientific consensus is that CF is bunk." There is a serious semantic error here. "Scientific consensus" is not the "consensus of all scientists." It is the general agreement of all who consider a topic with review of the evidence, and with sufficient background to understand it, otherwise it is not "scientific," it's just the ordinary opinion of people who might happen to be scientists. As I wrote, there is only one relatively recent general review that we know of, where we have some idea of the numbers involved, and that is the 2004 DOE review. That review did not dismiss the research as "bunk." Some reviewers did. But a very substantial percentage of them were much more favorable. If, for example, two out of three think it's bunk, and one out of three think it is a worthy field of investigation, with something quite possible real about it, is that "scientific consensus"? I wouldn't call it that, I'd call it a field in flux, it might go one way or it might go another. --Abd (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain, please

Please explain why you are referring to ScienceApologist in this edit, Please. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you should just explain it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Abd. Hipocrite (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, thanks for the notice.) Sure. Science Apologist was very active in controversy with Cold fusion, taking a consistent position, i.e., a POV. I see similar activity taking place with another editor, which is highly selective approval of sources on one side of an issue, while disapproving sources of similar reliability or even higher reliability on the other side. The old battles are still going on. We need to start finding consensus, and part of that is going to involve using consistent standards for sourcing; what is thoroughly offensive is dismissing sources because they seem to support something other than a particular POV. In the instant case, it was going on before any edit was proposed, the source was being impeached based on, apparently, a few words from the abstract and the first page. The apparent conclusions of the paper are different from an alleged scientific consensus, but there aren't any recent reviews confirming that consensus, and the older sources, particularly the review panel results, left the door open for something to change, and encouraged further research and publication. This is not really a fringe science topic, it's something similar, but different. When a third of a governmental panel consider that something anomalous is going on, and when the majority (or more) agree that further research is warranted, the topic isn't fringe. It is, in fact, cutting edge science, where prior consensus might be overturned.

I mentioned SA's name. I didn't attack him. Nor was that an attack on the other editor. I'd say that it was a relatively gentle, warranted warning. (i.e., "Don't go down that road.") Thanks for asking. --Abd (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please copy your comment to WP:AE. I suggest you do not ask editors to harass other editors. Hipocrite (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Whom did I ask to harass whom? --Abd (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You ask whomever you are writing the cited diff to "note the result for ScienceApologist." I have no idea why you are asking other people to go note things for ScienceApologist. Do not suggest that people harass ScienceApologist again. Additionally, in reviewing your recent comments, you state ScienceApologist is prohibited from editing talk pages of Fringe Science Articles. You are wrong in this assumption - "ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles." Do not make it, or insinuate it, again. Your consistent low-level harassment of ScienceApologist is disruptive, and it must stop. If you cannot behave with restraint towards ScienceApologist, consider not invoking his name where he is not involved. Hipocrite (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, it seems you are having difficulty understanding what is going on in front of you. I wasn't asking that anyone "go note things for ScienceApologist." I was suggesting that one particular user look at the arbitration and for that user's own benefit, review the result for SA. This is not an attack on SA, nor is it a suggestion for any editor to do anything to or about SA. As to your advice about not "invoking his name when he's not involved," if you look back over the history of this article, you will see constant mention of editors when they were not involved, most particularly Pcarbonn, as well as Jed Rothwell. What I've done here, if offensive at all, was extremely mild. There is no harassment of SA involved here, you seem to have a very strange definition. Further, you are disregarding WP:DR right and left, disrupting WP:AN/AE with a WP:POINT violation, reverting SA's harmless and helpful spelling correction and reporting him to AN/AE over it, when you acknowledge that you do not support his ban. This could not be clearer as a POINT violation. Above, Hipocrite, you misquote me. I didn't say that SA was prohibited from editing the Talk page. I said he should stay away, per ArbComm, which meant stay away from contentious, disruptive actions, like reverting Talk page comments. Not his job. It appears that he, also, misunderstood the comment, perhaps. I really found this whole incident to be totally puzzling, at first, until I figured out that it really was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point." Hipocrite, not SA. SA, if you were offended by my remark, and if you read this, I apologize. It was not aimed at you, it was really a reminder to another user to not go down the same road, and it did not intend to add any opprobrium to your reputation, nor to bait you. I was very surprised to see you appear as an editor to remove my comment. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hipocrite, you really misunderstood. To my understanding, the only interpretation that can be done is that Abd was telling Phil that he would get himself topic banned like SA if he didn't stop (in particular, if he didn't stop discarding a certain type of sources). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. "Type of source" means a source that would be considered reliable for most articles, by its nature (peer-reviewed, substantial publisher), but which is automatically rejected because of what it says. And, by the way, I can't "topic ban" anyone, and I have no magic power to call down the forces of nature and ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought Abd meant, too, and I was surprised that the comment was interpreted as an attack against SA and deleted. Arbcom decisions are like case law: they're looked at as examples of what might happen in other cases. Abd was recommending that someone read some particular Arbcom decision in order to learn something from it; the fact that a certain editor was involved in the decision was irrelevant: that was more like a way of telling the person which section of the decision to read.

Re the spelling mistake: Here's my opinion. SA should not have corrected that spelling mistake, but^{(20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC))} could have put a request on the talk page that another editor correct it. However, once it was done, the best response was probably to do nothing. It was a spelling mistake. Nothing worth wasting time over. Another reasonable response might have been to warn SA.^{(20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC))} Starting a thread about it at AE would seem like unnecessary wikidrama to me; and reverting the edit is counterproductive. Just because an edit shouldn't have been done doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to revert it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking out some of my words after reading the threads at AE. I apologize to ScienceApologist. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I came up with a suggestion at User talk:Durova. The problem with these little spelling corrections (there is more than one of them) is that it complicates Arbitration enforcement. If "spelling corrections" are allowed, then AE is no longer a matter of just noting edits. The content of the edits must be reviewed, which takes far longer. There is some possibility that SA is deliberately finding spelling mistakes to correct in order to make a WP:point, to express his contempt for the ArbComm topic ban. What I suggested is that, if his motivation is truly to help the project, that he revert his own "harmless corrections." He might, if he wishes, note this in talk for the article, or tell anyone else about it, but with a well-watched article, this should be unnecessary. A small extra nuisance for himself; but then, attention has been called to the spelling correction and it is easily implemented by anyone in seconds. Unless it's disruptive in some special way, a promptly self-reverted edit (and the self-reversion edit summary should probably call attention to the ban) should not be considered ban evasion, and I'd be prepared to argue that deeply if it's necessary. While the small extra inconvenience to SA would be minor, he'd be self-policing, which would stand in his favor, and the project would clearly benefit (and this practice could stand as a precedent). Generally, self-reversion is advised, under some circumstances, for possibly controversial edits; in fact, it gives me some ideas for myself. One can see self-reversion, documented as I suggested, in contribution history, and it would also be fast to confirm that the edit was harmless and whoever is patrolling the user's edits could quickly undo the reversion so patrolling becomes less of a suspicious exercise possibly motivated by punishment, and more cooperation.

This self-reversion process should only be used for non-controversial edits. If an edit is reasonably expected to be controversial, for a topic-banned editor, the edit should be proposed in Talk.

The edit summaries could look like this:

(sp) will revert per topic ban

(rv self, undo to fix spelling)

The intention to revert should be stated in the first edit so that somebody doesn't get trigger happy. Yes, it's a little more trouble (not a lot). That's what happens when you get yourself topic banned. (And the inconvenience to the rest of the project is why a topic ban is a last resort before blocking.) --Abd (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(<<outdent) Hipocrite, the thread you started at AE about SA's spelling correction looks like a POINT violation to me, although it may not be a POINT violation because there may be some other explanation for your behaviour. Here's one possible explanation: maybe it wasn't a POINT violation, but an IAR violation (if there can be such a thing). Maybe you forgot momentarily that the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is not the following of rules, but the production of an encyclopedia. Maybe you felt that it was your duty to report ScienceApologist for violating the letter of the ban, and referred to the ban as ridiculous in protest at feeling forced to do so. I don't know what your actual motivation was. If you ask me I can explain why it looks like a POINT violation to me. Wait: after writing the preceding, I found this edit, which supports the hypothesis I just described. Therefore, I think it was not a POINT violation; however, it may be an IAR violation or something. Hipocrite, please note that starting a thread at AE (or anywhere; some places more so than others) has a cost in other editors' time and that judgement should always be used before doing so; the predicted benefit of such a thread should outweigh its cost. I suggest re-reading WP:WIARM, e.g. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." and "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times." and maybe WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD and WP:Wikilawyering. Can you justify how your decision to report every violation of every sanction, including trivial violations such as correction of spelling mistakes, improves the encyclopedia? An arbitrator has clarified that "correction of typos, for example, can be ignored" [1]. I take the fact that no administrator has blocked ScienceApologist for correcting a spelling mistake as a sign that RfA, contrary to common belief, is not broken. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF

You appear to be assuming that I am somehow acting in cahoots with ScienceApologist. I am not. I think that his violation of his valid ban is wrong. The appropriate action to oppose a ban is not to violate it, but to seek redress. I am reporting SA's violations of his bans because I think that what he is doing should result in sanction. You have now stated as fact on three different pages that I am "cooperating" with ScienceApologist. Treating people you disagree with civily is not colusion, or an agreement to cooperate. It's civil behavior. If you continue to assume bad faith or untoward motives in my action, I will seek adminstrative sanction to make you stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Already, once, Hipocrite, you warned me against an action that you totally misunderstood, and then, without waiting for any response from me (and actually while I was writing a response), you took the matter to AE. That is disruptive. I did not assume bad faith at the outset, and I would still treat your protest with AGF. There is a possible matter on which SA might be subject to AE sanction, but only if he continues certain behavior. Your actions reverting spelling corrections (which violate, quite as SA has claimed, WP:IAR, since your reverts damaged the project, are clearly disruptive, in spite of your protests. It could be argued that his edits are also disruptive, but in a different way, and he should properly be warned before being sanctioned if he continues; to my knowledge, he has not properly been warned unless it happened since earlier today. You have not warned him, yet you have taken his actions to AE. The effect of your actions is cooperation in disruptive activity; initially, I assumed that you were merely being a pedantic enforcer, just as you claim to be. Given the behavior in more than one instance, I've been unable to maintain the assumption with any strength. And I'm not the judge. The community will be. If you want to take this to AN/I, you are welcome, but I'm not aware of any continuing activity that needs correction, at least not on my part. If you disagree, please cite specific edits. Certainly I make mistakes and I attempt to fix them when I do. But general, nonspecific complaints about past action, I'm not going to investigate my own edits, though I will certainly take your protest into consideration in future ones. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of tl;dr
		For consistently writing at length about shiite nobody cares about.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum! 74.10.198.243 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, 198.243. I ran this through a Latin translator, which came up with this:

Lorem itself pain he is amet consectetur adipisicing elit , but to give her transitory incididunt when to sink and pain magna some. When in fact to in the least degree grace , anyone our work at ullamco labor if not when some out of this to make fit according to reason. Duis but irure pain upon reprehenderit upon pleasant skirmish to be cillum pain good to flee nulla to pay. To take out sint occaecat cupidatat not proident , are upon fault quae workshop to leave gently breath this is laborum.Lorem itself pain he is amet consectetur adipisicing elit , but to give her transitory incididunt when to sink and pain magna some. When in fact to in the least degree grace , anyone our work at ullamco labor if not when some out of this to make fit according to reason. Duis but irure pain upon reprehenderit upon pleasant skirmish to be cillum pain good to flee nulla to pay. To take out sint occaecat cupidatat not proident , are upon fault quae workshop to leave gently breath this is to sink

I'm deeply honored, especially the parts about grace, reason, making fit according to reason, and pleasant skirmish, which is particularly appropriate to much of what goes on here. To leave gentle breathing is, indeed, surely to sink.

As to those who reverted vandalism on my page, which includes the above, I very much appreciate it, and as to the editor who restored it, on the basis that I could make my own decision, I can make my own decision in either case. Do not restore any edit by an anonymous and particularly an uncivil editor, unless you are willing to take personal responsibility for it as if it were your own, or the edit is needed for evidence, etc. The page has once again been semiprotected, as it has been for a long time, due to frequent vandalism. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about Lorem ipsum. The IP was comparing your comments to garbage text that means nothing and that is used only for filling space. Excuses if you already knew this and you were just mocking the IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I may know what the IP editor was doing better than he knows it himself. In the words of God in Time Bandits, I'm not entirely dim. --Abd (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to know that :D --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't revert it. I wasn't completely sure you would have wanted it reverted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally, this isn't necessary, normally, my Talk page is semiprotected, but it had expired, and I hadn't noticed. Nice to know they still love me, though. I know I'm doing something right when I get this kind of response, bad editors don't get vandalism like this. Instead, they are the ones who do it. Nobody is obligated to revert vandalism against my Talk page or elsewhere, but it's appreciated. There is no harm in reversion of apparent vandalism either way, I'll still see it. Hey, just thought of something. If someone warns me about some bullshit alleged offense, please just revert it as vandalism. That way, I can claim I didn't see it! Okay?

Seriously, the vandalism was reverted by three different editors, the IP kept insisting. I decided to put it back because I kind of liked the barnstar, I don't get many. The barnstar of tl;dr, not bad, eh? And the Latin, well, it's poetry, or, more accurately, interpreting nonsense to find meaning is an activity of the poetic mind. But I also requested semiprotection, which saves those people the trouble of reverting. Nice to know I can get it in minutes. Some things do work around here. --Abd (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your continued incivility on cold fusion

I've given you a warning here: Talk:Cold_fusion#Notice_to_Abd_about_battling_and_tendentious_editing. Please stop it. We can discuss the sources on an article talk page without making it personal, accusing other editors of POV pushing[2][3](here you imply that Enric is also POV pushing), rudely dissing another editor's thoughts and dramatically claiming the skeptical wall around cold fusion is crumbling [4],. I've let it slide up until now but the last comment is the last straw. Please stop, you've been around long enough to know better. It only makes you enemies instead of friends in your campaign to get lenr-canr unblacklisted. Phil153 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a related comment at User talk:Phil153#Part of comment had been struck out. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, Coppertwig. I'm responding in situ; admins, if it matters to you, please consider that I've been fully warned as if the original post on Talk had been posted here, and, yes, I'm not a newbie. However, also please consider that charges of POV-pushing have been routine at Talk:Cold fusion and in edit summaries for the article, for a long time. I redacted the "rudely dissing" comment independently, prior to seeing Phil's warning about it, precisely because I concluded it was rude, and even though similar comments have been made by many with regard to the comments of others, including mine. Desperately, we need to establish a collegial atmosphere with Cold fusion, with deep and careful consideration of sourcing, and what my comments were about was an appearance of preferential judgment of sources according to the POV that they might seem to support, even before edits were asserted using them, even before we had actual text (and I still don't have it and I think Phil doesn't, either). (This is about a paper in Frontiers of Physics in China, published by Higher Education Press, with the cooperation of Thomson Reuters. HEP is the largest publisher in China, the 45th largest in the world, while Thomson Reuters is the largest.) --Abd (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

With all that said the journal still doesn't have an impact factor.--OMCV (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's fairly obvious. However, WP:RS doesn't depend on impact factor. Such considerations apply to questions of conflict in sources, and for reviews of a topic where there is ongoing research, freshness may outweigh relative reputation of journals. The question of conflict in sources is tricky. I will assert, not necessarily as a deeply considered position, that conflict in sources is our problem, not a problem with sources, and that we cannot assert and depend on apparent conflict and deep analysis of source reputation in order to exclude material from one reliable source, favoring another. We are faced with a record which may have apparent conflicts; we report what we find in the record. To assert conflict as a conclusion, we would need reliable source on that. So if a review appears in a reliable source, in 2007, and it appears to contradict a review made in 2004 by the DOE, we may not exclude the 2007 report in favor of the 2004 DOE report unless conflict is so clear that consensus will find true contradiction. In 2004, the DOE found that "evidence was not conclusive." Evidence can become conclusive, as more evidence is considered. Further, the DOE report itself isn't "peer-reviewed," there are problems with it and the process which produced it. I do consider it reliable source, however, but I'm not quite sure which should come out on top if there is conflict. In true NPOV, by the way, there is no conflict, because every assertion is verifiable, and no notable and relevant verifiable fact has been excluded, and there will be consensus on this.

I think I'm beginning to find my sea legs here. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you are dressing up dog doo and hiding behind WP:RS technicality. The vast majority of WP readers don't understand the peer-review process, at least not well. They don't know the significance of impact factor or importance of publishing in appropriate locations. Generally speaking the DOE report is a peer-review of the field even if it wasn't peer-reviewed. All and all more people worked on the DOE report than a peer-reviewed paper thus raising its significance. I'm beginning to sound like you. Knowing more about the literature and how its created means that we are responsible for presenting it fairly. Your grasping at sophomoric philosophy when a practical approach is warranted.--OMCV (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, darn, my fuses blew. Please go away, OMCV, I'm busy. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion and Jed Rothewell

Please do not enable this editor, or assist editors in evading blocks or bans. Thanks, Verbal chat

Well, Verbal, consider this a level 0 warning. Do not revert Talk page contributions of legitimate editors, no matter whom the content originally came from. You will have another opportunity. Do it again, you will get a level 1 warning on your Talk page. Unless, of course, I'm blocked first.

But be aware that I've been around the block on this. I know what I'm doing, and if I were to be blocked over this (it seems quite unlikely, I've done nothing wrong, nothing against policy or guidelines, and am fully prepared to support what I did), it would escalate per WP:DR and would be, I'd predict, disruptive, if the conflict persisted. Please review the content of the edit before reverting it. Phil had the right to remove the material, as you'd see in my edit summary. But I also had the right to restore it, taking responsibility for any possible disruption from the content. Was that content uncivil? Was it inflammatory? Was it misleading? POV? Fringe? Was it anything that Rothwell couldn't have put there if he weren't banned?

Verbal, it was a rather negative review of the paper I'd proposed as being a useful work. If anything, the review could be consider contrary to the supposed POV bias of Rothwell, because the paper supports cold fusion, and it was purely useful. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to pursue or maintain vendettas or campaigns, and blocks exist to protect the project, not punish editors.

There was no "assistance in evading blocks or bans." I'd suggest learning a little about policy in this area, Verbal. Rothwell can edit any time he likes, ban or not, and just about all that we can do about it is to revert him. But there is no policy that prevents another editor from bringing his contributions back in, provided the user is willing to take responsibility for them. Now, Verbal, did you recently argue that ScienceApologist could make harmless edits to where he'd been banned from? See [5], and I think there is more.

We already know Jed's opinion. Enric, if you already knew Jed's opinion, that he expressed in that edit, please, how much would you take for your WP:CRYSTALBALL? It could be very, very useful. Even more useful than Cold fusion might be if it's real. The question was for his opinion on the FPC paper, which he wasn't even aware of, and his report was rather negative, even though the paper could be quite useful as a "pro-CF peer-reviewed paper. I think, Enric, that you didn't read the comment, nor did you read my argument in the text that I'd written as to why my restoration was legitimate. Therefore you are edit warring, making a bald reversion without discussion, with no necessity. It's just a Talk page comment! --Abd (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only you restored his post, but he made it because you asked him about something? I reverted it, he can send you an email to answer you, no need to violate his ban. (hint: the opinion of banned users might be welcome if it's relevant, unless, of course, they were banned in the first place because of soapboxing their opinions, like Jed was. Also, we already know Jed's opinion, and we already know that he's not interested on any NPOV presentation of them) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly he could have responded by email. But Rothwell doesn't care one fig about what Wikipedia thinks. He's banned, that's quite clear, and that fact is not at issue here. Now, given that he is banned, what if he had sent me an email? What would I have done with it? I can tell you, very easily. I'd have posted it to Talk:Cold fusion, if the content were what he put here himself. The post is not soapboxing. Talk page posts are not required to be NPOV, and, in fact, attempting to require that is chilling of the discussion that is necessary to find NPOV. However, that particular post was quite civil and reasonably NPOV, given that it was giving his opinion, which seemed quite a balanced one to me. Now, you reverted me? You reverted my post, not his, quoting him, just as if I'd received the email. I'm going to your talk page to request that you revert yourself. Be aware that I know how to call the attention of a wider community to editor actions, and that if we cannot resolve this between us, it will escalate, so please be careful. Don't dig in your heels regarding an action that you could not defend if, say, it went before ArbComm. See you on your Talk. (I presume that you read the warning above to Verbal, so it therefore applies to you.)

Storm's paper can be a RS, but Jed's opinion is unpublished, is the opinion of an unreliable source, banned editor, known POV pusher and COI'ed person. Tell him to reply on your talk page and not on the page he has been topic banned from. (or copy it here and put a link on Talk:Cold fusion for people interested on Jed's opinions) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric, your response here is dense with errors and misinterpretations. It's moot who and what Jed is. "Tell him to reply on my Talk page?" I don't ask people to waste their time with useless actions. He replied. I suspect he forgot who asked him, I'm sure he's inundated with email. So he replied in the article, with a harmless edit. He was properly reverted by Phil. The rest of this has nothing to do with him. It has to do with you and me (as well as Verbal, though I responded to Verbal and I'm sure he's pretty busy right now.) I consider what was in his response to be very relevant and useful. I restored it on that basis, originally, and then began to compose a comment on it. I have the absolute right to do this, and only if the material itself were disruptive would there be a possible issue with my behavior over it.

When I tried to save the comment, I ran into edit conflict. Verbal had reverted again. Now, this already crossed the line, it wasn't proper, but it's a bit marginal. I don't push marginal. So I finished my response, framed Rothwell's edit as a quotation from him, added argument why it was legitimate for me to quote it, and posted it. I did not revert. This was a new edit, with new material, and the old material that it contained was now framed as a quotation.

It's been suggested by Verbal that Rothwell could send me an email, except that this would have required Rothwell to figure out who I was. He might have be able to do that, but it could also have been significant trouble for him. Then you suggested that Rothwell could post it to my Talk page? This has to take the cake. Enric, Rothwell is blocked, he edits with IP (by the way, he was quite legitimately editing when he was blocked, with the only problem being a certain level of incivility that is very common with opinionated experts. And he wasn't spamming, period, and that will all come out. You are joining the wrong crowd, Phil. Please be careful. My Talk page is semiprotected, IP cannot edit here. But it would be silly to ask him to post here, because I'm fully capable of reading his response in Talk.)

So with this silly argument about posting on my Talk, you reverted me. You are not reverting Rothwell, you are reverting my discussion, which quoted a communication with an expert in the field (whatever else we might say about Rothwell, he knows the literature very, very well). The communication was relevant, on point, show no fringiness, and useful. I'm composing a more formal post for your Talk page. I'll check here to see if you have reverted before putting it there.

And, meanwhile, the substance will go back to the Talk page in a way that, if it's reverted again, will make it totally clear what is going on. I'm using the Talk page to discuss a source, this is directly and immediately relevant. Why, Enric, are you attempting to suppress discussion with wikilawyering about a banned editor? The principle you are asserting is corrupt, I've faced it many times, there isn't any doubt. Look at the recent fuss with ScienceApologist. Everyone agreed that any editor may revert back in removed edits from banned editors, provided the editor is willing to take responsibility for it, it is not even controversial. I reverted SA's spelling correction to Cold fusion back in after it was reverted out by Hipocrite as an edit by a banned editor. The issue with SA had to do with declared intention to ignore the ArbComm sanctions, which was a whole other kettle of fish. This is pretty much SOP for me, I do know what I'm doing. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fix his mistake and copy his answer to your talk page. Jed is not an "expert on the field", and asking for his opinion is like asking the fox to take care of the hen house.

This all smacks of making a point to show that Jed is not disruptive and eventually contest his ban. Indeed, when you quoted Jed[6], the first half of your comment was an argument about how Jed's ban was wrong, and the second half was justification of why you bring those sources to the talk page and vague references to how an editor opposing you was going to get blocked for 3 months. You were already warned about that type of intimidation.

Finally, you keep talking about the next step on WP:DR but you keep posting on the same places. I don't want to hear any more "level 0" warnings, vague menacing references to Arbcomm and to banned editors, or see the topic brought yet again to the same places. WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U are thataway. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you repost any more material from banned or blocked editors, or act as a proxy for them in any way, you will be reported to AE and/or ANI, where I fully expect you to be blocked to prevent further disruption. Verbal chat 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Verbal, don't you know that everything you do here is visible? Ahem! Level 0 refers to a warning issued in a place where the editor is not responsible for seeing it. It indicates lack of intention to seek sanctions. A level 1 warning, which is more what people usually think of as warnings, can preceded a block and be the basis for it. The "next step" in DR is user Talk page discussion, and this side of it is only half, there is the other side, which began with Enric Naval, whose reversion was more serious and offensive than yours. Beyond that, I'd attempt to involve a mediator of some kind. There is an arbitratable disagreement here, so don't imagine that threatening me with AN/I or AE does anything more than cause me to notice how people bring their own fate down on themselves. You've referred to this affair on User talk:ScienceApologist page. Do you imagine that this is helping his or your cause? Apparently, you, or someone, is spreading disruption over this, see the Jehochman comment below, and the community just might take a dim view of that. You are creating all this flap over one reversion, and then one original edit, not a reversion, both of them removed, standing as such, without any edit warring from my side and no bald reverts except for one that I fully expected to stand, the first, which was explained, I thought adequately. What's that called?

Verbal, it is well established that reverted edits of a banned editor may be restored by any editor willing to take responsibility for their propriety. As I wrote above, I've been down this road, I've been dragged to AN/I over it, and, as I recall, the one who dragged it there ended up being banned. Or am I confused about that? In any case, at least two editors who have made complaints about me to AN/I did end up being banned. I've been blocked once, over a complete misunderstanding, as Jehochman later acknowledged. I'd supposedly attacked User:Fritzpoll, and he also later acknowledged the misunderstanding. Take a look at my privilege log and see who granted me rollback.

Proxy posting

Hi, Abd. How are you doing? I hope you are well. A few editors brought to my attention this edit. It is established that users should not proxy post for a banned (or topic banned) editor such as Jed Rothwell. In the way of friendly advice, I'd ask you to respect that norm, even if you disagee with it. Thank you. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To make this clear, I disagree that the norm applies to what I did. I don't disagree with the norm. I was not asked to make this edit. It was not "proxying," and many or most of the edits I've seen from Rothwell I would not have reverted back in. However, I'm also taking the warnings seriously. Without lying down and playing dead. --Abd (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman. I'd be careful about what edits you look at, i.e., if you only look at what was cherry-picked for you. I reverted Rothwell's edit back in based on well-established precedent; however the edit you showed was reverted and I did not revert it back. Instead, I framed the comment and added my own; the reason is that Jed Rothwell is an expert in the field (fringe or not), published, well-known, trusted to edit conference papers, etc., and the opinion of an expert is of interest. This particular opinion was very much on point, and, I'll note, not at all POV-pushing or uncivil. I was willing to take responsibility for it, and, obviously, since I restored it, I am responsible. So if that edit was disruptive, I should be whacked with a wikitrout or more. But it wasn't. I know you have been following some of the SA flap. What was very clear in all that was that those who restored SA's helpful edits, even though he was topic banned, because they were useful, were not doing anything wrong, they were not "proxying" for him; rather, they were making independent judgments that the edit was good. This was a Talk page edit, and the discussion is useful, directly connected to a source being considered for the article. I personally found it informative.

The edit you should look at, then, is this. In it, I framed the Rothwell post and explained the situation, making it very clear that this was my edit, not his. I'm not banned. And the edit wasn't disruptive, except for people disregarding Talk page guidelines, now: it was also reverted. The precedent on this is actually quite clear, but in case it isn't, this is an issue worth escalating if necessary.

Is it necessary? I mentioned in the edits around this issue that I would be moving up the WP:DR ladder on this. You know me and how I approach conflict, it is one step at a time, starting with discussion between involved editors, usually two. Then, if that fails to find agreement or compromise, I'd try to involve a third. Going to AN/I or calling in administrators for support, when there is no emergency, is quite a bit down the road. But sometimes it gets escalated quickly by the other side, and the track record of these escalations has not been good for those who jumped ahead like that. I can think of at least two of those editors who have been banned.

Jehochman, as you may know, I do all that I do as if ArbComm were watching over my shoulder. I'm fully prepared, if necessary, to defend my actions in this all the way up to ArbComm, though always I seek resolution far below that level.

Your warning here boils down to reminding me about rules against "proxying for banned editors." Perhaps you are not aware that I've been taken to AN/I before for allegedly doing this, and the claim was rejected. I'm nobody's meat puppet, I looked at the edit and made an independent judgment that the material in it was worthy of review. This is not proxying. If the edit was disruptive, i.e., uncivil or perhaps POV-pushing in some tendentious way, I would be responsible for that.

Again, I don't edit war when opposed, I attempt to gather and find consensus. I have not reverted the contribution back in, but I will be responding with a new edit that should accomplish my purpose as far as the article is concerned, without "proxying," even under the incorrect standard proposed. --Abd (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ScienceApologist

I'm concerned that your comments on User talk:ScienceApologist are causing ScienceApologist grief with little to no benefit. Here are all of your edits to SA's talk page:

1. initial&cleanup
2. response to ChildofMidnight
3. response to Ronnotel
4. response to incivility by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
5. response to Verbal

Here are all of ScienceApologist's responses to you

1. removing Abd's first comment

What could I do to convince you to let the wheels of justice turn without your assistance and get you to leave SA alone while SA is blocked and staring down the barrel of a gun? Please note that soapboxing on ScienceApologist's talk page has in the past led to extremely bad results, as I assume you are well aware, and please additionally note Principle #7 - Baiting - at the Fringe Science case - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Baiting. Please consider just leaving him alone. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's moot now, because SA has blanked the page, which, as he is off his block for a few minutes or however long it takes ArbComm to close that block motion, he not only has a right to do, it removes the need for any response there; my response there was only necessary because (1) he was making deceptive comments about why he was blocked, (2) some editors were falling for it, and (3) his friends weren't correcting the situation. With friends like his, who needs enemies? William Connolley and another editor tried to convince him to back down, but he has been dead set on getting banned even more deeply.

No, I am not aware of the history you refer to. I've seen his history with Cold fusion, that's all, and it wasn't pretty, but he and I had not tangled before, nor was there anything serious except his strange comment on Talk:Cold fusion a few days ago. As you know, I reverted his spelling correction back in, the one you reverted out. He imagines that I am a "cold fusion promoter," which is just more fantasy on his part, he seems to see Wikipedia as being divided into the good guys and the fringe POV-pushers, and anyone who confronts his massive incivility and his edit warring must be one of "them." And, of course, since such people are the enemies of all that is good and true, deep-set enmity is perfectly okay. It's a poisonous approach, just as harmful to him as it is to the project, and he will be better off elsewhere for a while, quite probably, and I'm sure we will muddle by. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stay off my talkpage

Make NO MORE EDITS to my talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, since you ask so nicely. I see you blanked the page. Smart move, I approve. Otherwise all the deceptive anti-ArbComm propaganda you were writing there was trolling for responses to correct the record.

And for the record, I'm not a "cold fusion promoter." I've been doing a lot of reading in the field and it is an extremely complex situation. What I "promote" is NPOV and Wikipedia guidelines and policy, which are generally excellent, if editors would try to understand and follow them. SA, you have been damaging the project for a long time by demolishing the civility which is essential to consensus, and consensus is essential to the discovery and expression of true NPOV. It appears that you will be given a nice long time to think about it. That wasn't necessary, you have forced it, practically demanding it. You know perfectly well that this wasn't about spelling corrections. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your distance from SA

Engaging with SA and his supporters on his talk page can only end badly for all concerned. Please stay away. I understand you don't appreciate the characterizations he is making, but you have more to lose than gain by your actions. Ronnotel (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronnotel. I was about to notify him of my filing of a notice on AE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist_abusively_editing_his_Talk_page, but I'll trust that you will do it. I don't anticipate any further need to edit his Talk page; but if he continues the abuse, I can and will take other action. Sad situation, actually. --Abd (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's best to walk away. There is ample precedent that AE and ArbCom take a dim view of those who carry-on disputes onto SA's talk page. My $0.02, but probably worth somewhat less on the open market. Ronnotel (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did walk away, of course, not only because you asked, though the "thanks" above was genuine, but because it had become unnecessary. Here is how it worked: SA had set up a situation where it was likely he'd get blocked, and then he'd be able to claim that the blocks were ridiculous, and the ban was ridiculous, and, my assumption, he saw it as win-win. If he's blocked, his supporters rise up in rage over him being blocked for "spelling corrections," and if he's not blocked, or is unblocked, he has eroded the edge of the ban sufficiently to make it much more difficult to enforce. What's puzzling to me, though, is how open he was about his intentions, for the traps -- and they were traps -- were easily seen through, since he quite openly announced what he was doing.

This has to be realized: SA was laying a series of traps. There are many, many administrators. If he's editing on an edge, some of them will interpret is as being over the edge, and will block him. Then he can argue that this definition of the edge was stupid, foolish, rule-bound, and all the rest. However, I tested his intention. I realized there was a way that he could make those marginal edits without causing problems with ban enforcement. I cleared it with Carcharoth. And I placed it in many different places where he would see it, including on his Talk page as part of a clarification that he had not been blocked for "spelling corrections." I felt that clarification was necessary because many editors were repeating that falsehood.

What actually happened was that he made spelling corrections, and practically nobody complained, and certainly he wasn't blocked for them. Until User:Hipocrite, an ardent defender of SA, reverted them and went to AE. Hipocrite was quite likely cooperating with the plan to make the AC ban look ridiculous. When SA went off his 24-hour block, he promptly tested the edge again, in quite the same way, and he was blocked. Now, the argument made in his defense was that the article, N ray wasn't "fringe science," it was about a fraud. And then the distinction was made that N ray, wasn't fringe science, but pseudoscience. Ryan, who blocked him, wasn't about to accept this argument, though it's reasonable on the face but certainly not clear, but then it developed that SA had AC permission for the edit. Okay, he had permission. Why didn't he disclose that?

It's quite likely that he got the permission, then deliberately did not disclose it. It was just one more trap. He could have placed, in his first edit to that article, in the summary, "with permission from the AC, ...." He could have pointed to this permission on his Talk page.

No, the pattern is very clear, and it's sad that his friends seem to be unwilling to recognize it. The only hope for AC to have remained a useful editor would have been for his friends to restrain him. When he comes back, if they act like SA can do no harm, if they excuse his rampant incivility, if they jump in to protect him from response every time he insults someone and they react normally, he will be permanent history and nothing else, here. And some of them will go down with him.

I was not involved with SA up until a few days ago. I had no POV pushing agenda here. I would have preferred SA's positive participation in the article I'm currently working on, Cold fusion, it's important to have his POV represented. But it's also important that it be represented by editors who realize the importance of finding consensus and working collaboratively.

The last admin to !vote on the ban cited what happened with me on SA's Talk page as the last straw. Absolutely, provoking SA gratuitously would be offensive and disruptive. But what I was doing wasn't gratuitous, I saw it as necessary, to a point. I did not take it beyond that point. I'm not convinced that my last two edits to his Talk page were necessary, but they were truly minor. At a certain point, the community has to realize that protecting a disruptive editor because of all the "useful contributions" may be costing much more than the value of those contributions. It was expensive to keep SA around. I did not arrive with that as a conclusion, a few days ago, I wouldn't have dreamed of saying this. It's based on what I saw him doing in the last few days, and only a little on what little I know of his prior history.

My kids have a dog. The youngest, 5 years old, provokes the dog all the time, it's difficult to stop her. The dog is pretty patient, but does, sometimes growl at her and snap in her direction. However, if the dog were to savagely attack her and injure her, having been provoked, we'd still have to get rid of the dog, no matter how much we (including my daughter) love her. Editors should not savage other editors whom they don't like or see as POV-pushers, fringe fanatics, or administrators and editors with a different view of how the project works, or even who in some way "provoke" them. SA was highly provocative, trolling for incivility in general and for administrative response, specifically.

And if SA would promise to cooperate, I'd still support his return. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't tracked all of Abd's comments to SA and therefore can't comment on whether they have been excessive (maybe a bit on the excessive side, not sure -- Ronnotel is certainly right that less is better when things are really hot). However, I fully endorse Abd's general take on the situation above as well as this comment. It's too bad that the situation is so polarized, but that's evidently what SA wanted; as Abd notes, SA telegraphed his intentions with great clarity. He was really unhappy with WP, and rather than disengage chose to act out and push preexisting bad behavior even further. (See FaysallF's perceptive comments.) It shouldn't be so surprising that a ban resulted. Double standards like the one WP was nurturing toward SA are metastable and can only withstand so much scrutiny, in practice. Any editor acting as SA did, even one whose content edits I totally agreed with, would need a break from WP and vice versa. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Middle 8, welcome to my Talk page. I make mistakes, for sure, but have often made good wikifriends through them, because I strongly believe that Wikipedia should be a collaborative project, for NPOV is dependent upon the collaboration of people with many different POVs, there really is no good way to judge NPOV except by consensus; we may need to make compromises at times, to be sure, but the only guarantee of true NPOV is complete consensus. It's attainable, iff the participants are willing to engage with mutual respect and civility, seeking it, which can take lots of discussion sometimes. Editors who cannot listen to the other POVs and attempt to figure out what could be legitimate about them, and then make reasonable compromises to extend consensus, who dig in their heels and edit war and flame, can demolish our very mechanism for grounding the project, and those who are skilled at innuendo and arguments that appeal to factions can do damage that will take years to undo.

Because I believe in collaboration, when an admin arrives here and asks me to stop doing something, I will usually stop it, or will at least modify it, because collaboration involves making reasonable compromises, and usually, single-editor actions are dispensible on Wikipedia. I.e., that I edit may not be necessary, even if it's allowed. On the other hand, I should mention, I have a religious obligation, when I'm aware of something that is important and which isn't general knowledge, to disclose it, and this obligation can apply even if disclosure risks my life (besides which my WP account pales in significance). That's disclosure, though, and doesn't give me the right to barge into someone's living room and start shouting. --Abd (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Final request

Science Apologist will return from his ban in approximately 3 months. When he does, I'd very much appreciate you not reviewing his edits. It is not helpful. Please confirm that this is acceptable to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, for several reasons. However, I will say that I do not ordinarily track editors, i.e., watch their contributions looking for problems, and, in fact, I did not do this with SA. I dealt with what was in front of me. When it became appropriate to present evidence, I did, then, look over SA's contributions to verify what was being said by others: he had made a series of provocative edits, and he had been very open about his intentions to defy ArbComm and to show how foolish the ban was.

Tell you what, Hipocrite. Mind your own business. Your role in this affair was far less than helpful. You are the one who caused me to become involved with ScienceApologist, by how you responded to an edit which mentioned him as an example of an ArbComm action, and which did not attack him. SA also directly attacked me, on Talk:Cold fusion, suggesting I should be banned, with utterly insufficient cause. (I pointed to a paper which used the term "cold fusion" to refer to what is ordinarily called "hot fusion," and this was easily seen as an error. I should be banned for what was, at worst, a misinterpretation of a word, thinking it meant what everyone else seems to think it means, such that my attempts to make the distinction clear have so far been reverted, and with no POV agenda whatsoever involved?). I had seen problematic editing previously in reviewing the history of Cold fusion, but I see problematic editing all the time, and I wasn't watching him. You brought him to me, and he came to me. Do that again, I'd respond in the same way, only next time, if this happens again, it will be your actions which will be the focus.

SA is blocked today because of your "help." As I've written elsewhere, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

On the other hand, thanks for asking. Much better than taking it to AN/I first! Do try to read WP:DR, and follow it. --Abd (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind waiving the 2 certifier requirement for an RFC? Hipocrite (talk)15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on there - local admin here - what's the rush to an RfC? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the community thinks about Abd reviewing SA across multiple pages. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a good use of time IMHO. Rfc has the potential for generating more heat than light. Abd is free to look at anyone's contributions. It's a wiki for pete's sake. What he chooses to do about what he reads is the only relevant topic for an RFC. Ronnotel (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously. It's what he's choosing to do that's the problem here. Perhaps he could choose not to needle people any more. Perhaps the community would tell him that if someone wrote an RFC about it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hipocrite, I didn't "needle" anyone. I haven't tracked SA looking for trouble, I described what I did above. Now, there may be some trouble happening in the reverse direction. In commenting in another place on the edit to N ray that led to SA's most recent block before the AC 3-month block kicked in, I described my review of the edit itself, concluding that it was, in itself, harmless. Then I noticed, as an external link for the article, Cold fusion. A fringe science topic. Why is a fringe science topic being linked from a pseudoscience article? Fringe science is radically different from pseudoscience. Except not in the mind of SA. That edit was, in fact, a violation of the ban, but in quite a subtle way. There is a sizable contingent of people, including some scientists, who consider Cold fusion to be a fraud, complete bunk. This is not the view of the U.S. Department of Energy, nor of any recent reviews of the field; rather, opinion is seriously divided on whether there is any fusion taking place, and there is general support for further research to figure out what the hell is going on, and serious research taking place, with frequent publication in peer-reviewed journals. This kind of activity is completely missing with pseudosciences. Cold fusion is one of the articles behind the Fringe science arbitration.

So in editing that article, SA was working on an attack piece, a piece used to attack Cold fusion as a pseudoscience and fraud. He didn't do it directly. He didn't put that link in, it was done almost a year ago by another editor whose history I haven't looked at much but who did have an interest in fusion. In any case, the link doesn't belong there, and that is very clear. There are links in the article to the general articles, and it's possible that one of these or more to refer to Cold fusion, but, hopefully in a less offensive way.

Hipocrite reverted my removal. Hipocrite has been acting in collusion with SA, with high probability. I'm not taking him to a noticeboard; quite simply, this is, at this point, a tempest in a teapot. However, this is my Talk page. It's the kitchen. It gets hot here.

I will not waive certification, because there is a very good reason for it. Two users must certify an RfC that they have attempted to resolve a dispute and failed. I take that requirement further. They must have made more than one attempt at resolution, escalating one step at a time under WP:DR. RfC is disruptive, it can take up enormous amounts of time and energy. If Hipocrite cannot get another editor to try to resolve this, to try to convince me that I should (what? it's not clear), to take responsibility for a possibly disruptive process, there should be no further consideration of this.

Hipocrite is maintaining the disruption, extending it; here, he tried to extract a promise from me regarding behavior three months from now, purely hypothetical. He was immediately hostile from the beginning, and his taking me to AE over a harmless comment began my involvement with SA. Hipocrite is, in fact, over the last few days, about as disruptive as SA. I'm not going to do anything about it because it's being noticed by many editors, and I doubt that he'll be able to continue it for long, and I have better things to do. But I will, especially here, call a spade a WP:SPADE, and sometimes people notice the spade, and put it away where it belongs. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit ban on User:PJHaseldine

A permanent ban on my editing Lockerbie-related articles was imposed on 11 March 2009.

At the COI discussion, you advocated a temporary ban pending closer review as well as cautionary notices going to Socrates2008 and his partner Deon Steyn.

I raised these matters with Ed Johnston, which he dismissed saying they were simply your opinion (implying they were not to be taken seriously since "Administrators who enforce the ban are expected to use common sense"). It occurs to me that you might have something to say in response.

There seemed to be no support for a permanent ban when the issue was raised at the Adminstrators' noticeboard.

You might be interested to know how amazingly successful the concerted attack by Socrates and Deon Steyn has turned out to be. Two years ago, Deon added the Category:Conspiracy theories to the Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 article. Deon's move allowed Socrates to add the Category:Conspiracy theorists to my biography in January 2008. Then, less than three months ago, the title of the title of the Alternative theories article was converted to conspiracy theories without discussion.

Since the COI discussion on the two editors remains open, there's still time for you to help clip their wings.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look, PJH, and I take what you have written here as done in good faith, I intend to look at the situation. Because of my review of another topic ban, I've come to the conclusion that, pending review of your ban, it isn't utterly absolute, provided that you respect not only it, but the enforcement process as well, so if you are interested in making truly non-controversial edits to the article or the attached Talk page, ask me. However, you should abstain from any direct conflict. Asking someone else to review a situation, and to intervene on their own responsibility is, in my opinion, reasonable and not a ban violation. In fact, it may be better for such a request to take place on-wiki, because it could happen off-wiki through email without even being visible. However, extensive requests like this would be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Generally, I'd recommend only asking one or two editors to look at a situation, and probably only one at a time.

My goal generally is not to clip anyone's wings, but to help editors to fly right. As I'm sure you recognize, it's hard to fly right with your wings clipped. The fastest way for you to regain your editing privileges, assuming they have been restricted -- I haven't checked yet -- is to demonstrate cooperation with the community, and, if possible, with the other involved editors as well. I know that can be difficult, but it can also be well worth the effort. If you had been meticulous in this respect from the beginning, usually efforts to topic-ban a cautious and cooperative editor fail, and, indeed, the community's attention will be focused on any editor who proposes it, since such proposals often come from POV-pushers who are, themselves, not interested in cooperation. I assume I will comment more after investigation. Involving a neutral editor is, in fact, the next step in WP:DR whenever a conflict cannot be directly resolved.

As an SPA, you are vulnerable, and need take special care. SPAs are sometimes effectively topic banned as to the article, there is no clear boundary between WP:SPA and WP:COI. From the other side, experts in a field are often SPA or COI, so my view is that, while the community should set and maintain strict behavioral boundaries for such editors, we should also actively invite their participation in Talk pages, and attempt to moderate the disputes which arise. In my view, much damage has been done to the project and its reputation because of a lack of understanding of this, and experts have been rather badly treated. Many or most experts have, as a result of their extensive knowledge, a strong POV, as viewed from a general perspective, though not necessarily from within field. (When I've special knowledge in a field, I've been accused of POV-pushing when I've simply expressed what is well-known in the field, as I know through extensive off-wiki communication with others even more knowledgeable than myself, but which is not necessarily easy to prove from reliable source; without supporting RS, I can't incorporate such knowledge into articles, generally, but I should definitely be able to mention it on a Talk page without sanction.)--Abd (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a revelation to me, Abd. I'd never heard of an SPA before or, at least, didn't know what it meant. I first came across SPA in Wikipedia Review in relation, funnily enough, to Socrates2008: "What I alluded to in the following post has been brought to the attention of WP:COIN by the S. African editor Socrates2008, who's turned into something of an SPA."

I'm digesting all your good advice. Many thanks.---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

SUCI Page regarding

Dear Admins, another puppet of User:Kuntan has appeared. It is User:59.91.254.3. Please check the discussion page of User:William M. Connolley. This puppet has challenged every one to go for another range block. I don't know what a range block is, but it seems that he is going to continue his miscreant efforts. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, can I then remove those edits made by this IP range user from the articles that he has edited? Many have expressed concern that those edits are to mutilate the image of this organization for what ever reason he has for it. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. However, yes, you may revert edits from the range to the articles of interest, unless they could reasonably be considered to be from someone else. I suggest you not remove good edits, in your judgment, but you do not have to review edits for quality; and note that if any registered editor reverts them back in, you should leave them alone (and engage civilly and with assumption of good faith with the registered editor if you think the edits are a problem). If there are many such IP edits or other vandalism or clearly inappropriate edits to an article, you can request page semiprotection at WP:RfPP. Do not argue or debate with the editor, remove the edits with a comment like "rv banned User:Kuntan." Be careful about one thing. If anyone warns you about 3RR violation (making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to a single article is a "bright line," and you might be blocked for it), stop and engage in discussion -- not with the IP editor, you may ignore warnings from that IP range), do not continue. Ask for help. I removed some edits from this IP to your Talk page, as I assume you know. You can remove edits from anyone to your Talk page, with few exceptions, but avoid insulting anyone, including this IP editor. I did not remove edits where a registered editor had responded. That's one reason not to respond to a banned editor.

If this editor were sincere in wanting to improve the encyclopedia, he or she would register an account and make useful edits and follow guidelines and policy, avoiding the articles where there has been a problem. After a lapse of time, the editor could return to the article, and, as long as the edits don't show the kind of disruption that was involved with this IP, it would be fine. In other words, even leopards can return, if they will change their spots. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, Abd. Very thorough. (I'm not an admin either.) Except does this user also need advice on where to get the attention of admins for a problem like this? (e.g. WP:AN/I, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) Or maybe that's already being taken care of for this case. I don't know. by the way, User:William M. Connolley is an admin. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, well aware of it. He's famous for it, in fact, with notice in media. The user has been to AN/I already. Good start, given his position, but not really necessary any more. Thanks, Coppertwig. --Abd (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits made by User:Kuntan puppets as per the direction.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find yourself likely to go over 1-2 reverts per 24 hour period, ask for help. You can ask me or anyone who is familiar with the situation. Blocking the specific IP is probably a waste of time, except that it creates a record of admin support for enforcing the ban. There may be a page where reports of IP being used by this banned editor can be accumulated, if I have time, I'll look for it, it will make it all easier and less risky to you. If you ask William M. Connolley or any other admin familiar with the situation, they can decide to block, and they can also semiprotect the page, which prevents edits from IP and newly-registered editors, which will reduce the ability of the banned editor to edit. You can also go at any time to WP:RfPP and report the edits. Be very careful not to assert content issues or to attack the editor. The editor is banned, not condemned, by reverting edits you are simply assisting the community in enforcing what it has already decided.

If you make a mistake and remove edits from someone who, possibly, is not the editor, apologize immediately. (There is no harm in apologizing to Kuntan, should that happen, Kuntan quite likely would be much happier if you insist on some weak identification and get blocked for edit warring or incivility if for some reason a decision goes against you. Administrators make mistakes, as does anyone.) Do not edit war with anyone reasonably asserting that they are not Kuntan, but ask for help and independent judgment.

Do not treat an edit by this editor as an emergency, Wikipedia is constantly vandalized and sometimes vandalism isn't noticed for a while. Just deal with it as efficiently and with as little fuss as you can; I'll watch the article and if I miss it (my watchlist can get a tad busy) you can always point a situation out to me here or by email. A banned editor will probably relish any disruption created and especially any criticism of your work, so don't feed the monster, be careful, and share the burden.

When you see an edit by IP that is probably Kuntan, look at the contributions of this IP. Sometimes you will see old contributions, or occasionally even a recent one, that isn't Kuntan, that's because these IP addresses are shared. That's why admins will be reluctant to simply block the whole IP range that Kuntan has access to, it will cause collateral damage; but sometimes if there is enough disruption, they will indeed block the range, it's a question of balancing the one harm against the other. So do glance at the edits and I'd suggest leaving in anything that seems harmless. Banning is to protect the project from vandalism, incivility, and other problems, not to punish the editor, and not to prevent helpful edits. You may revert without examination any edit which is clearly this editor's. An example would be if the editor makes many edits in a row from the same IP. If the first and last edits are Kuntan, from content, you can assume that all the others in between are also Kuntan, and quickly undo them. Installing a semi-automated editor, the kind used on vandalism patrol, can make this very efficient, such that you -- or anyone -- can remove the edits of this editor faster than they can be made.

Now the other side. Kuntan, if you read this and you think you got a raw deal, back when, I'm willing to look at it. If you think that there is a specific problem with editors you've been complaining about, you won't fix it by doing what you have been doing. I have a page, User talk:Abd/IP that is kept open and unprotected for use by IP editors, and if you make a civil complaint there, I will investigate it and see if I can help. If you charge other editors with misconduct, include specific evidence that I can verify. Don't worry if you are reverted there, by anyone (including me), I will read whatever is put there from History. I don't always see it immediately, so be patient. I have been advising R based on general principles, and not with any decision about content or other editors or even R. You are banned, and thus expected to refrain from editing, period. The more you defy this, the more firmly your ban becomes cemented in place. If you really believe what you have been saying, you've been going about it in a seriously mistaken way. Change your attitude, and you might be much more effective. Bans can be reversed if the editor reverses their attitude and becomes cooperative. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Abd thankyou for the clear advice. I will follow the same and refrain from doing edits on the same page more than twice in a day. I was also adviced by some experienced editors through email that I need not respond to the comments of User: Kuntan. So here after I will not respond to him, but will intimate other concerned editors the moment that I see him creating more trouble. He simply is not civilised. I checked his history and the history of his puppets. He has over years (at least since 2006) abused a number of other editors. Unfortunate that these people cannot be stopped completely from Wiki editing. Thankyou once again. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As an example of what you should avoid: "He simply is not civilised." It doesn't matter if he's civilized or not. He's banned, end of question. Civilized, banned, revert edits. Uncivilized, banned, revert edits. You may do more than two reverts in a day, but by the time it's two, you should be asking for help with WP:RfPP or another editor to do some of the reverting, etc. Suppose he makes ten edits to an article before you find it. I have rollbacker privilege; for this kind of application I could revert those 10 edits with a single click. If you do it and you don't have rollback, you'd have to make 10 undos. (Note that consecutive reverts count as one for the purposes of WP:3RR). (You could also install Twinkle, which simulates rollback but which is harder on the servers and takes longer.) Just be careful. (One of the nice things about Twinkle is that you can request page protection with one click and entering a few options, very fast.) --Abd (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Kuntan

I was just tracing the edits made by Kuntan and his puppets. I kept on removing all that where ever it seemed that he was using abusive language or was dragging IPs of institutions into conflict. Sorry if it is inappropriate. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I will change it all back to the previous state.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No. STOP NOW!. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay...as you suggest. I was waiting for your reply--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Sure...I will then not search any further into the history of this User:Kuntan--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion

I posted a message [7] at Talk:Cold fusion with a link to a comment of yours which was deleted from that talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. How did you like my self-revert, eh? Look below at the comment from Verbal. Just imagine, we could have been savaging each other at AN/I! Would that have been more fun? hmmmm....

No. --Abd (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion talk

Thanks for understanding my edits to the talk page, and by further helping by collapsing a section. What do you think of the subpage idea? I personally, and I think generally, it is usually considered better to be more concise in posting than is your style. You can post as you wish, but I would ask you to try and cut down on the length a bit - sometimes this does mean ignoring a meta-meta discussion, or focusing on only one thing, but you can always return to the other topics later. For example, you don't need to keep defending other editors - if you find yourself repeating just note a diff ("See here for why I think you're wrong about X") or a section or subpage of your userspace. Sometimes meaning can get lost in excessive verbiage, a la Sir Humphrey. However, you can edit as you wish (within reason!) I hope you take this in the constructive way it is intended and as an olive branch. Yours, Verbal chat 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Verbal. No problem. You should understand that I have a problem: to condense what I write -- I have a lot to say on these topics -- takes me much longer. I can condense it, and I do when it's polemic, but normally I don't have time. You are certainly welcome to help us all stay focused. Indeed, that's what I'm trying to do there right now. This field, though, has suffered from a long period of tendentious editing and there are lots of issues to be faced. It will settle down, I predict. --Abd (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Haseldine

Thanks for the note on his talk page. Yes, you're right, I do want to do what's best for the project, hence the reason I initiated the two COI cases against him. This is also why I supported a CheckUser against the SPA account that's been harassing him. However he's been openly abusive towards me throughout, and I think I've endured this longer than many others would have. I'm finding it difficult right now to go out of my way for him while he's directing insults back at me, and while he has the impression that it's all personal. So for now, I'd prefer to take a passive role in monitoring these articles and make a contribution to the project in another way by getting on with the articles I've submitted for GA and FA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly I understand. His behavior is quirky, I'll say I don't understand it yet. However, my goal is solutions, and I highly recommend letting go of what has passed, it may make it easier for him to let go as well. Hence the suggestion that, if you see a self-reverted edit, know that it is an attempt to cooperate with the community. You can help by encouraging that. The edit in question was slightly more complicated than a spelling correction, so if something is too much for you to deal with in the time you have, just ignore it. But if it's simple, is my point, why not just say, "Okay, this is good." Click. Done. Agreeing with people when they are right is an aspect of civility, very important in restoring civility when it has broken down.

As you can tell, I'm not about to tolerate incivility from Haseldine. As I wrote, if that is maintained, the positive contributions he can make are outweighed, and he'll be blocked. By all means, do what is of most interest to you. He asked you to look at his edit. I got to it first, I got the edit count increment.... not that this matters. A better answer than rejection would have been no answer at all. "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all."

Good luck with your articles. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, point taken. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

UofA section #1356234 ..

Hi!  :-). Eh, question, did you ever get an answer from UofA (I recall you sent them mails)? Let me guess: No, they are too busy with promoting their marginally notable organisation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/36. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, AGF is a good idea in general, not just for registered editors! However, as you know, AGF doesn't mean that we don't take a firm stand, it merely means that we avoid assuming a bad motive, at the same time as we act to protect the encyclopedia from inappropriate edits. UofA is an ambitious school, it is very difficult to get something like that going legitimately.

Consider this: they have competitors and disgruntled "customers," as do we. We really don't know that the IP edits are coming from someone hired by them. How about this: they hired an SEO, then realized that it was a mistake and refused to pay. The SEO says, okay, if that's the way they will be, we will still do this part of our job. The part that gets them blacklisted.

My point is not that this is what is happening, necessarily, but that it could be happening, and we shouldn't get our pants twisted over imagining the evil spammers, fangs dripping with the innocent blood of unsuspecting readers. We simply protect. Professional police, the healthy ones, that's what they do. They will be nice to you as they cart you off to jail, and will only harm you to protect themselves or others (including you) if you attack them physically. Friend of mine gave the finger to a cop who had given him a speeding ticket and wasn't nice about it. Dangerous? Yes. Some police aren't professional. However, all that happened was that the officer turned red, steamed a little, then got back in his patrol car and drove off. My friend is a lawyer and ex-cop. If the officer had been unprofessional, probably that would have been the end of that officer's career. But it's not clear that the citing officer knew that.

The UofA site is now blacklisted except for the home page. That's fine. If a need appears for another page, it can be whitelisted, and if it appears that the risk of spamming is over, the whole site might be delisted. But I'd see two conditions necessary for that. One would be explicit acknowledgment from the school that they will cooperate with efforts to stop linkspam or inappropriate editing on their behalf, and the other would be that a need has appeared as shown by another whitelisted page that is actually used and stable. Otherwise it's not worth considering.

Thanks for discussing this. It's a good example, actually. How much harm was done by delisting? Very little, I'd say, most of the "wasted time" was spent discussing process, which isn't wasted if it leads to more efficient process in the future. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Though if they do not reply, I suspect that they did not (yet) say that the SEO should stop (but we will never know). If the SEO will go on after not being payed that would be a Joe Job .. with different things to do with it. I think I will now shift from blacklisting/revertlisting to using the abuse filter (just see how it goes and if it works properly). I think it can keep out a lot of collateral damage (and when I see the filter is working in this case, we can again consider to de-blacklist the whole site)! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of response from UofA so far, I would put anything to do with them way on the back burner. I also posted to User talk:Amithani which is almost certainly an account of one of the corporate officers. No response. So, basically, do the minimum, as little as nothing. There is no demonstrated need for a link to other pages besides the home page; until someone needs that and requests it, the status quo is just fine. As you know, I'd like to semiprotect the whitelist page, plus, probably, routinely deny requests from obvious SPAs there, even if they aren't automatically prevented from making a request on that page. A new page would be set up for whitelisting requests from IP or new editors or SPAs, and admins wouldn't even need to look at this page. A registered user, not an SPA, would need to approve one of those requests and transfer it to the regular whitelisting page. Requests on the IP/blacklist page would be routinely denied without prejudice if no registered non-SPA account appears to close them by transfer. Essentially, they would be autoarchived. End of need to respond to obviously bad whitelist requests. Delisting should be requested as a whitelist request for the entire site. Again, less fuss for blacklist volunteers. A registered user, not an SPA, closing a whitelist request, would transfer it to a section to be implemented by an admin; certain users would become known as reliable to certain admins, who would probably routinely implement these requests with little fuss. The focus of the whitelist is content, not linkspamming or spam. Content is more important than preventing spam, and only if some conflict appears would there need to be a broader discussion. And in a case like that, it's quite likely that some more intelligent response -- such as a bot -- would be best instead of the blunt instrument of blacklist/whitelist.

As an example, suppose some class of edit, identifiable by bot, happens often, often enough that some substantial percentage of these edits is a bad edit (more than half?). But some of them might be good. If they are bot-reverted, and this is flagged in some way, the edits can be taken back in very quickly and efficiently. Poor man's Flagged Revisions, actually, requiring some kind of "sighting" to get possibly problematic content into mainspace. Bot operation is subject to consensus and the usual safeguards. We need both efficiency and intelligent decision, minimally disruptive, regarding content.

What this would do is to create a default exclusion of certain kinds of material. So what if, perhaps, good material is excluded? Suppose nobody is paying attention, and a good edit is missed, that could easily happen with a class of edits where most of them are bad, as with a spam filter, where an isolated good mail that happens to trigger the edit gets missed in the flood of garbage. What it would taken, then, is for some IP editor who wants to get this edit in -- and the bot can automatically notify -- to ask a regular editor to fix it. Any regular editor willing to take responsibility. A user category could make it easy to find editors willing to do this review. The vast majority of real spammers or vandals won't even bother asking, it would be a fast way to get blocked.

The key is to harness the broad community, to spread the load, to make it easy. The result would be not only more efficient, but more clearly reflect broad consensus. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed the users, but am expecting new users any minute .. the nice thing about the abuse filter is that even if an edit is blocked, we can see what was attempted. And then the filter can be adapted to allow for such edits, or to do the edit. It is in any form way less bitey then indeed blacklisting links, protecting pages or blocking editors (in which case we would never see if good edits were attempted). The rule I applied was deemed too broad, but I am going to try and put it back in a slightly different form, I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have enabled warning in Special:AbuseFilter/36. Editors in the two used ranges, and unestablished editors now get MediaWiki:Abusefilter-advertising, having the choice still to save the edit. If they persist, I am going to tweak the system, create a second rule that blocks the edits from the IPs, and from specific users on these articles. It would in all cases be less disruptive than blocking the accounts, protecting the article or blacklisting the links (and I am curious if the filter can be used to do this in a proper way too, it could help us with a lot of problems in the future). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the guidelines and instructions for the blacklist pages suggest that measures short of blacklisting should be used, including the use of bots. So, congratulations on going that way. Bot reversion is far more flexible, I have very little objection to it, especially if it is easy to review, and it is certainly easy to undo. I'd say that when a bot reverts an IP editor, a notice should be dropped on the Talk page. The notice should explain what to do if the user thinks the link is appropriate, such as suggesting it on the article Talk page. Bots can be far more focused and specific, they can prevent the anonymous or new-editor addition of links to, say, articles, but let them be for talk pages. Or if Talk page links are clearly abused for true spamming (which is by definition unrelated and nearly always useless), then the bot can be expanded in application, but, still responsible editors can add links. And lose their right to edit if they abuse it. It's far more efficient than the blunt instrument of the blacklists, once the proper tools are in place. Thanks. I'm not exercised about what happens to University of Atlanta, but ... we should not punish our readers for the actions of bad apples. If it's notable, it gets an article. It then gets a link to its web site. But it does not get to control its own article; I suggested to Amithani that if there were any problems with the article, that he ask for help on the Talk page. He ignored that. Too bad for him. I have no big investment that depends on his cooperation. --Abd (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of incivility

Perhaps you missed it, but Kirk Shanahan has politely requested that you explain your claim that his edits were uncivil. (You also claimed he was making "gratuitous inflammatory remarks".) Given the seriousness of the accusations you made, I would hope that you would respond to his request for clarification.--Noren (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some mistake here, Noren. Please read the edit. It describes the collective behavior of two editors who were going back and forth. It did not make the specific allegation you mention against one of them. When you have two people going back and forth like that, and say that one of them is being uncivil, there is a good chance the other is, as well, only possibly more subtly. This was not a "serious" accusation, in that I didn't seek any action against either of them, and then I suggested that there might be value in their discussion, so, please, would they refactor their comments under a new section, this time taking care to avoid gratuitous inflammatory remarks. Consider this an informal warming regarding civility. An informal warning is not "serious." If I warned one of the editors on their Talk page, that's serious, because it can be the last stop before a block.

This was not a claim that Shanahan had made gratuitous inflammatory remarks. It was a claim that such remarks had been made in their discussion, and I'm trying to encourage both of them to participate in a more useful process.

I could easily make a judgment that one of them behaved more badly than the other, but, then, I'd be less effective trying to calm things down.

I did say that the editors had been exchanging "derisive comments." I have that impression. It might have been inaccurate. I make mistakes. I can say that if someone says something like this about a debate I've been involved in, I generally consider it moot. I want Wikipedia to become a friendlier place, and that would include improving my own behavior. Many, many things, far, far more serious, have been said about what I've done and am doing and nothing came of it. I'll take edit warring to a noticeboard, but not incivility directed against me. Sometimes when it's directed at someone else, I might, if I think it's doing damage.

Now, is it worthwhile, my going back over that debate to find why I considered Shanahan's comments to be part of the problem, not exclusively the other editor? Does it matter? What if he isn't? What would we do differently? The section was collapsed. Nobody challenged that. Why, Noren, are you asking me to waste time like this? If Shanahan remains exercised, he knows where my Talk page is and he is more than welcome here, I have no problem with him, personally, and I've been assisting him, I'd say. I had planned to respond to him. What, exactly, is the rush?

In any case, I responded there. The next step is up to Kirk. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some mistake here, Abd. Please read the edit. It describes the behavior of two editors who were going back and forth. It makes the specific allegation I mentioned against both of them. When you have two people going back and forth like that, and say that one of them starts to be particularly uncivil, there is a good chance the other may be provoked as well, even if only so far as frankly describing the uncivil behavior of the other. Instead of analyzing the issue and giving a measured response, or declining to respond accusations, you flatly accused both of them of wrongdoing and collapsed the discussion. Though he has asked you to explain your accusation, you seem to want to make him jump through your hoops before you answer the question he posed to you.

I didn't find your accusations to be convincing, but of course I also could have been mistaken about that- perhaps you saw something there that I did not, or perhaps you thought one or more of his more confrontational later statements had crossed the line rather stopping just short. I would have hoped that you would have responded if you had been aware of his request, so I pointed it out to you. Rather than giving a direct response to his simple question, you instead chose to dodge his question entirely and go off on a tangent justifying your own behavior.

If you were serious in your civility complaint, I would have thought that you would have had a specific behavior of his in mind and that you would have been pleased to explain in response to his direct question. That would be the civil response to a request that you clarify a criticism- indeed, clarifying an unclear criticism may be the only way to make the process worthwhile. Vague, unexplained accusations shed smoke and heat but no light.

This is not the only recent instance of your incivility toward Kirk Shanahan, your recent accusation of wikilawyering against him for what was a straightforward objection based on the quality of the source. While he should perhaps no longer be considered a new user, it may be a bit premature to start tossing accusations of wikilawyering at someone with a few hundred edits.

Please tone down your accusatory tone and assume good faith about Kirk. I would hope not to lose his input on this topic. More generally, it would also be helpful if you were to tone down rhetoric portraying the situation as being adversarial and of particular editors being on one 'side' or the other. --Noren (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Noren, in the absence of complaint from Shanahan, bug off. I did not make a "civility complaint." You did, about me, but only here, which I don't mind in itself. I took action to defuse a disruptive or potentially disruptive interchange, I did not "complain" about it, I described it in terms that deliberately avoided specific allegations. As to the "wikilawyering," this was a friendly comment, pointing out that a technical argument was being used to exclude one source, and I could go on, but, frankly, this is probably all moot and not worth discussing. If Shanahan has a problem, he is very, very welcome here. However, absent evidence of that, your intervention here is suspect. He asked a question, true, but doesn't seem to be exercised about it, and answering that question could do more harm than good, especially if his question wasn't more than a transient response. WTF are you doing?

Absolutely, if Shanahan wants an answer to that question, all he has to do is repeat it, here, or ask again in the article Talk page and I will answer on his Talk page. I should fill up Cold fusion Talk discussing his behavior? --Abd (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, I did respond, briefly, on the Talk page. I cited it above, based on your request. What more would you expect? --Abd (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2009

Stimulating discussion on open source notability

Hi there, I'm back after a Wiki-vacation! I've added some meaningful suggestions to User:Abd/Open_Source_notability I'm looking for a forum on Wikipedia to attract people to the subject (e.g., A request for comments on tech articles) -- LirazSiri (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit-summary at [8]

Please consider a retraction of your edit summary, even if it was intended as humour.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've wanted to know for a long time how to fix an edit summary. Please help me with that. How would I do it?

I considered it, on your request, and I'd strike it if I could, simply because you requested it, but I rather doubt that this would be worth having an admin remove the edit from history. Uh, I take "mood-altering drugs" -- legally, of course -- and I suggest it to someone? It wasn't humor. It was straight. Quite a few of us might benefit! Please look at the context, see what I was responding to. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Go check your e-mail. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping Fritzpoll (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Request feedback on article

Dear Abd. I've rewritten the article at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux and added reliable sources (the non-english sources are in the talk page). I also opened a RfC but so far no one has commented. Could you take a look and give me some feedback? Thanks! LirazSiri (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I will when I can. I did make a comment on the Talk page, but that was more about process. As to RfCs, be patient. You can also request comment from specific editors, if it is only a couple of them. Don't violate WP:CAVASS; in this case, it's more about not "spamming," rather than about possible undue influence. If you decide to do this, choose experienced editors, high edit count, good apparent reputation (you should be able to tell from the Talk page), and, in this case, knowledge of Linux would be a plus. I have very little; on the other hand, knowing little may allow me to simulate an evil, fangs dripping with blood, rabid deletionist position, i.e., "devil's advocate." If the article is solid, various creatures like that (who serve a useful purpose in the overall scheme of things) will not be attracted. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed speedy deletes automatically should go to AfD

If I understand them properly, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that any disputed speedy deletes ought to go to AfD. I was involved in the TurnKey Linux thing in VPP and it absolutely blew my mind that those involved did not appear to understand how incredibly corrupt it looks for a bunch of administrators to repeatedly force an article into the speedy delete process bypassing AfD.

So is there anything we can do to try to inculcate a guideline / policy along those lines - that disputed speedy deletes need to go AfD automatically? Is there already a discussion of that underway somewhere? I haven't even searched, I wanted to hear your thoughts.

P.S. Am I correctly interpreting hints in your user page indicating that you're a Sufi? If so, Sufism is awesome, as is Islam in general. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get myself into trouble. I don't call myself a Sufi, but some Sufis are awesome because they are like me. I do call myself a muslim because I meet the technical requirements; we have from the tradition, "Do not say that you are mu'min, but that you are muslim." "Mu'min" is usually translated as "believer," but it really meant someone who trusts in God, or Reality, or Truth, whatever name you want to use for it. Do I trust? I can look at my life and say, "Here I didn't, there I didn't. Sometimes I want to trust, sometimes I did. Times when I clearly trusted when it was tested have been the peak experiences of my life." To trust in Reality, and trust is a condition of the heart, not a profession or credo, is a goal, often difficult for us. "Muslim" means only that one has accepted certain things when they became clear, or even that one accepted for other reasons. End of khutbah. I used to be a Muslim chaplain at San Quentin State Prison; with only a few exceptions, that was the only congregation foolish enough to let me handle that ritual. Captive audience. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Struth. I disagree that disputed speedies necessarily have to go to AfD. The Wikipedian "consensus" system doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. If a speedy is contested by someone who seems to misunderstand the CSD criteria, and if the article appears to be an obvious speedy candidate, it can be speedy-deleted. Articles can be speedied during AfD: if they meet the speedy criteria, an admin can decide to speedy them, and this often happens. WP:Deletion says "Administrators can delete such pages on sight, even if contested as below." I believe articles can be speedied during an AfD even if there have been some "keep" votes; however, WP:CSD says that if an article has survived a deletion discussion it can't be speedied.

A lot of users spend a lot of time judging articles at AfD, and there's a shortage of users doing that: some articles get too few comments. Getting the obvious speedies out of the way helps save time and concentrate effort on the other AfD discussions. According to WP:Deletion, approximately 5,000 pages are deleted per day. It could be overwhelming if all contested speedy deletions were sent to AfD. However, it says that contested speedies can be taken to DRV.

In the end, though, it's the consensus of the community that decides. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. SB, I agree with Coppertwig that it shouldn't be automatic, however, the only question on a DRV for a speedy deletion would be whether or not the article meets speedy deletion criteria. If not, then the speedy should be reversed. I do not agree, again, that it should then automatically go to AfD. Rather, anyone who wants to file the AfD can then do so. Basically, the principle I operate under is for discussion to not take place on a scale beyond a handful of editors at most, with community process (such as XfD, RfC, AN or AN/I, etc.) only taking place when such small-scale discussion is inadequate to find consensus, and the matter is considered sufficiently important to open it to the community. Right now, that means one user willing to go to the hassle of filing an AfD. In the long term, I suggest, XfD should be like RfC/User: two editors would be required to sign on that they attempted to deal with an issue through WP:DR and that was either impossible or failed to find consensus.

Using DRV to determine consensus on notability, beyond the basic speedy criterion on that, is the wrong forum. That should be AfD. --Abd (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig: I understand the concerns about the shortage of users hanging around AfD. But it seems to me that if there are enough users paying attention to collaborate in forcing something into the speedy delete process there ought to be enough users to comment on the same issue in an AfD.

The problem is, if an article has already been deleted and there's a DRV on it or there was a DRV on it for a few hours then in all likelihood only admins have actually been able to examine it. I had to look at the TurnKey Linux article through the Google cache of it that LirazSiri found. That is NOT the outcome being decided by the consensus of the community - it's the rest of us being forced to trust the judgment of the admin part of the community, coincidentally forced to do so through the use of admin tools.

It just does not make any sense at all why something would have to be repeatedly forced into a speedy deletion. I don't see any reason why the admins who would spend all their effort on the speedy delete and DRVs of speedy deletion couldn't simply spend the same effort within an AfD, except that they want to get their way and they don't want to have to be patient. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the heading of this section. Generally correct, with a few exceptions, such as apparent bad faith objections. For instance, if somebody creates an obvious attack page against a living person, they don't get to dispute its speedy deletion at AfD. Jehochman ^Talk 09:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below edit by Coppertwig)Well, except for "automatic," I agree. Essentially, admin speedy deletes. Editor objects at DRV. Okay, did the article fit speedy criteria? That should be the discussion. "Not sufficiently notable," quite simply, should be a disregarded argument. "Sources not reliable" is stronger, but as long as there are sources that might be usable or sufficiently reliable, as long as the material appears roughly verifiable, it's out of the speedy category and into AfD. It's very difficult to debate the notability of a topic without seeing the article! What happens, if the article remains deleted during discussion, is that people !vote based on inadquate knowledge, far too often. They !vote because they trust the deleting admin. They !vote because they are inclusionist or deletionist. They! vote because they do a shallow search and don't find anything. These ones, at least, tried! Once someone is contesting it, it should be deletion for clear speedy-satisfying reasons. Speedy deletion criteria deliberately avoid marginal notability.

However, this is insufficient process, still. I think that DRV should be like RfC/User: A DRV should be made as a proposal, perhaps on a page for that, and it should not be opened unless certified by a user in good standing, probably an autoconfirmed user, perhaps with some edit count restrictions. The user certifies that (1) the undeletion request is reasonable, and (2) a good-faith attempt has been made to resolve the dispute directly with the deleting admin and the deleting admin has refused to undelete or, alternatively, to recuse (i.e., to not oppose undeletion by another admin). In a speedy deletion by JzG, I requested undeletion, and he refused, but he also stepped out of the way, so a request to another admin did the trick. I would also interpret lack of response by an admin to a reasonable request from an editor, maintained for a week, to be recusal.

In all this, we may need better "hierarchy." We currently have three basic levels: IP or newly-registered editors, auto-confirmed editors, administrators. (Higher privilege levels aren't relevant here). We need a level between autoconfirmed and admin. There could be several ways to create this level, I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say that it should not be difficult to obtain the privilege, unless there is major opposition, and it should also not be difficult to lose it. Frivolous requests or actions. This level could be the same as having the ability to modify Flags (which is just such an intermediate level), but it might also have different requirements, simplicity might argue for identity of the two, I haven't been following the latest on that.

Bottom line, this level is a more restricted group, designed to have a large active membership, but also having privileges that can be lost if abused.

If the consent of an editor with this privilege is necessary, then editors who don't have the privilege merely face the task of finding one with it to agree and take responsibility for a desired action.

In a purely peer structure, in traditional deliberative environments, a motion must be seconded before debate opens.

The article that started this was a subject of marginal notability. To my mind, it didn't meet speedy criteria.

Here is the evidence:

• User:Abd/TurnKey Linux
• speedy nomination as 'spam' by IP editor

Editor locates to Portugal. Also tagged NUbuntu.

Edits to List of Ubuntu-based distributions from this range: [9][10]

Related IP with second edit above was a vandal same day as editing Ubuntu-related articles. IP contributions

• revision as of speedy.
• logs for page
• There was a first DRV, withdrawn by the nominator (the page creator).
• page log showing deletion of user copy of page (this is mentioned later). Admin is not only speedying article, but prevents user work on the page in user space.
• last edit in a problematic exchange on JzG Talk
• 2nd deletion review
• [11] Closure by Spartaz. * TurnKey Linux – Deletion Endorsed Once nominators resort to personal attacks on good faith users contributing to the discussion we close them because DRV is not a platform to attack other users. There is a clear consensus supporting this deletion and, if you want to bring this back, you will need much better sourcing then what you have come up with here. – Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Head-scratching. The DRV is dense with bad arguments, including notability arguments not at the speedy criterion level. Speaking as an uninvolved user, I am surprised at the incivility of a number of the people arguing for deletion. This thing appears to have some valid sources and references that could be used, and thus, cannot be deleted under CSD. Thus, Overturn and list at AFD. Jtrainor (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) The close by Spartaz was clearly improper: it made article survival dependent on the alleged behavior of a user, and it confirmed a speedy deletion based on a need for "better sourcing," when some editors clearly believed sourcing was at least marginal. The purpose of speedy deletion is to avoid debate over clear deletions. The assumption of some editors appeared to be that a review of a speedy deletion should address the ultimate notability question, which is a fundamental error. However, having said that, the best way forward is not, at this point, another DRV or further dispute resolution process. Rather, it is to find consensus that the article is ready for a return to mainspace, among those actually working on the article as it sits, userfied.

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_61#Notability_criteria_for_entries_on_free_software_projects.3F is how I noticed the situation, and I commented there on the IP edits as the basis for the speedy deletion by the admin.
• The more I look into this, the more worms are crawling out of the can. Must stop for the moment! --Abd (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Struth, I suggest that before taking an article to DRV that you ask an admin to userfy it. That way it can be seen by everyone during the DRV. If it's an attack page or something then that might not be possible, but in most cases I think an admin would userfy it, especially if you tell them it's so that it can be viewed (and edited) during DRV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, even though it had become clear to me that there was a problem with the DRV, I had the article userfied to my space. It should be realized that, before the second DRV, the one filed by SB, the article was userfied, but was speedy deleted from the user space of the creating editor. There was extensive abuse of process here. Speedy is designed for non-contentious deletions. Using it to pursue personal opinions is a problem. --Abd (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't bother asking for it to be userfied again: the people who wanted it deleted were speedy-deleting userfied copies of it too and I have no interest in facing off with someone using admin tools in that situation. Why should I have to be patient, careful, and thorough and follow process at all if the admins don't feel they need to?

This whole sort of thing just needs to go into AfD or some other process where there are specified time durations and everything doesn't depend on the judgment of impatient, bitchy admins with questionable degrees of impartiality. Same amount of effort on everyone's part (perhaps even less, actually), just delayed by five days and process and propriety can be followed. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, it looks like there were problems with process there. And I guess admins have to be careful doing speedy deletions, because it's a lot of power in the hands of one individual. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds were they deleting the userfied copies? Were they deleting the page as a routine administrative action or is there evidence that they were "involved"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of involvement. My comment would be that the issue is, here, not one of involvement, per se, but rather of approach and style, and, further, a habit of, once a decision has been made, continuing to discover reasons why it was the right decision, while being unable to see reasons why it wasn't. This is a fairly common human dysfunction, it is one which often afflicts Wikipeida, and it's particularly pernicious where power is concentrated into the hands of a person prone to that, even more so when the person is persuasive and habitually trusted without independent investigation. --Abd (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (I haven't gone and checked), the person who deleted it from LirazSiri's user space was that JzG fellow, also the one who speedy deleted the mainspace article for the 2nd time. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. However, my strong suggestion is to stay away from the person thing. However, if it interests you, watch User:Abd/Notices, as well as my Talk page.

Heh heh, well I must say that's not surprising.

But it wasn't just him, though: this is something that was openly discussed in VPP. I was staggered by the apparent number of admins who either didn't understand the ethics and process problems involved, or were straight-up endorsing the violation of process - all just for the sake of denying LirazSiri a procedural deletion of his article.

I always assumed that the bad admins I'd encountered were few and far between but this experience has made me seriously question that... I think in the future I'm just going to assume that admins are ready and willing to use underhanded tactics until proven otherwise. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdented comment by Coppertwig moved to outdented position below.]

There are, what, 1600 administrators? Your conclusion above would be warped. Most admins will approach a topic fairly if it comes to their attention and they have time to consider it, they are not fed misleading evidence that appears conclusive, and they do not, in error, trust another administrator or editor (perhaps based on a history of positive interactions). Not as many administrators are "misbehaving" as you might think. Individually, they might be or they might not be. My operating assumption, with even the "worst," is assume good faith but also allow for error or personal bias -- if any of us think they are free from such, and if that person is an administrator, the person should be desysopped immediately and leave Wikipedia behavioral management to imperfect human beings, and I'm sure that a perfect person, in this respect, would have much more important things to do --- etc. Wikipedia discussions typically involve on a few editors, and typically no administrators or only a few at most. Participation bias is thus a risk. However, dispute resolution process allows for this, by gradually expanding the circle of involved editors until a broader consensus is clear. While it only takes one editor, theoretically, to escalate, when a consensus is truly snowing, appeal will be shut down quickly; for a single editor to move beyond that takes more than one editor, and even two can be shaky.

Behind all of the policies and guidelines is WP:IAR, which must be interpreted in the light of WP:CONSENSUS. The subject article was deleted, and I agree that the some aspects of the deletion (and especially of the userfied copy) were improper. But what will be raised in review of this, contrary to what I've stated above as what should be process, is the question of notability. I.e., the community will address this question: "Suppose the deletion was improper, that it should have gone to AfD instead. Is there any reason to believe that it might survive AfD?" Your expressed position, Struthious, is that the topic is insufficiently supported by reliable source, i.e., you have claimed that it would properly not survive AfD. Thus, in closing with a confirmation, your nomination would have been read that way. Requesting undeletion because of process wonkery (I.e., "right result, but bad process, therefore let's start over") is reasonably rejected.

I've seen horrible process confirmed at AfD, i.e., the nomination was abusive, the nominator edit warred with an administrator over the admin's speedy close for rapid renomination, the nominator was a sock puppet of a banned editor, under simultaneous discussion at the time over that, etc., but AN/I is so dysfunctional that when the admin asked for support (he can't block an editor with whom he's engaged in a dispute, so he properly went to AN/I), AN/I started, instead, to debate the notability of the topic. (The puppet master was a master at this kind of diversion.) This kept the discussion open long enough to attract enough comments that closure was considered inappropriate. The discussion, which became massive because of the wide attention attracted by the AN/I report, was divided between Delete based on notability (which was marginal, some very long-term editors !voted to keep) and Keep, the large majority of which was based on process violation. The closing admin closed as Delete, based on the proponderance of the arguments issue. See, process error isn't an argument for Keep or Delete! I was involved (not with the article, but over concern about process), I could have gone to DRV, but what would be the outcome there? Likely the same. So the article was userfied at my request so work could continue. I haven't looked at it for a while, but at some point, it could be reasserted in mainspace or someone could take it to DRV. My opinion, last time I looked, was that it was still likely to generate more heat than light. Consider the overall welfare of the project! Articles that are marginally notable can be highly disruptive at AfD. It's better to work on them to improve them, if possible, to give them the best shot. If the article is in mainspace at that point, every improvement can be a battle, as sources are challenged, POVs asserted and removed and the rest. In user space, a consensus of those who support keeping the article can develop, and, if it includes experienced editors who know what's likely to happen at AfD, the article will then have the best possible chance at free breathing again. Meanwhile, in user space, it's not "free" in some senses, but it is more free in others. Cooperative work can continue without disruption and contentious debate, the only debate being over how to best improve it. Want to cite a mailing list post? You know, they are not always unusable, under some narrow circumstances they can be cited. With the article in user space, it can be done. In mainspace, someone who really wants the article gone will revert such a citation in a flash.

Another feature of the article being in user space. I can solicit the participation of friendly editors. As long as I respect the limits of WP:CANVASS, there is no open question, so biased solicitation isn't an issue. There were long-term editors who !voted Keep, among the few !votes based on assertion of notability. At some point, I could ask each one of them to look at the article and help if they can. When the article goes back into mainspace, if they have contributed, the AfD notice, if it is filed, would pop up on their Watchlists. Further, it's legitimate to notify all the editors of an article under AfD. See, the process is, in fact, as it should be, somewhat biased toward Keep, when experienced editors are involved; that, however, is balanced, routinely, by deletionist editors, who, big surprise, follow Articles for deletion, many other experienced editors having decided to stay away, AfD is hazardous for their wikihealth. There is no WP:Articles for inclusion to follow!

Look to the ultimate goal, Struthious, and factor in some realistic understanding of how human beings and human societies function, you will find it much easier to understand what goes on here. And maybe even to tolerate it enough to have the patience required to make long-term changes for the better. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Admins are human beings and need to be treated as such. I think that when an article is at DRV, deletion rules should be interpreted more leniently for userfied copies (or even mainspace copies) during the DRV, so that people have a chance to see the page during the discussion, and I'm under the impression that this is usually done; and the rules for userspace also allow more freedom than for article space. (although e.g. clear BLP violations still need to be deleted immediately even from userspace). Abd, you're right: there's no point pointing fingers and worrying about what happened in the past. For the future, one idea might be, when userfying a page for discussion during DRV, to put a message at the top like "Please don't delete this page during the DRV discussion" and having a link to both the DRV discussion, and to a section of the talk page devoted specifically to the question of whether to delete the page before the DRV is over, i.e. "if you're thinking of deleting the page before the DRV is over, please discuss here first". I would hope that people would tend not to delete pages (especially in userspace) during a DRV anyway (except... etc.) but it doesn't hurt to make a polite request or reminder. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A proper DRV could have been (could still be) for the speedy deletion of the userfied copy (But I oppose this, for reasons given here). That would properly have avoided, for the most part, notability issues, as long as there was some reasonable assertion that reliable source might be found. But, in fact, we did an end run around this, since the article is userfied, but to my space, and there is no credible assertion (or fact) indicating that I have an advertising motive, the basis for the speedy, as I recall. General rule: if there is a less disruptive way to get done what you want to get done, pick that way. If I wanted to embarrass the deleting editor, then, quite possibly, I'd have gone for DRV to show him who's boss. Sooner or later, this kind of attitude would backfire. Liraz Siri is now quite free to work on the article, without worrying about it quickly disappearing, and subject only to my general laissez-faire attitude, as long as serious contention doesn't break out, and I tend to bring along with me a contingent of experienced editors who notice what's going on here. I will let go of what can now be considered a draft with history, either upon my personal judgment that it's ready for mainspace, or a consensus of those working on it, in my judgment, or an outside consensus, which, note, would have to be a consensus to return! (As well, obviously, if I abuse my position as user-space manager, I could lose my custodianship, and if too much time passes, the draft would be vulnerable to MfD.)

There are admins who will routinely, absent specific objection, such as BLP violation (which they will then review and decide upon personally), userfy a deleted article. Sometimes if there is a violation or problem, they will userfy it in fixed condition. Before going to DRV, an editor should, I'd suggest, always userfy. Let me point out that if they cannot get an admin to userfy the article, it is totally useless and a waste of time to go to DRV. Then, at DRV, the commenting editors have an article to look at! Some of them might even improve it. What's sensible, though, is to not rush to DRV, if there were reasonably cogent objections involved in the original deletion or any review. Rather, fix those problems, if possible. If a perfectly good article is deleted, doesn't need fixing, still try to satisfy the objections. Does some problem section really need to be there? It could always be put back later, when the decision would be far less disruptive and more likely to be made using regular editorial judgment.

Think in terms of maximizing consensus. This requires considering the objections of that useless band of no-gooders, abusers of newbies, POV-pushers aligned against Truth, obviously careless and ignorant and mean, or, at least, not, without necessity, tossing a piece of meat in front of them! There are only two reasonable alternatives to this first one, really: second, go away, find something better to do with your time, which should always be there as an option (if it's not an option, you probably need to develop it as one!), or, second, exterminate them, get them banned. Which does pose a few problems, and even if you succeed, you will merely have reproduced them in yourself. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point, which I thought of several times in writing the above, and it escaped. Always provide opposing editors with a face-saving escape. If possible, of course. People who have !voted for Delete, say, may vote that way again because of normal inertia and will disregard new arguments. After all, if they were smart, wouldn't they have thought of these arguments themselves? By giving them new arguments without new substance, aren't you implying that they aren't smart? But if you present them with an article that has been changed, they now can say, "Keep. Great job! (I was right to !vote for Deletion but) Now it's ready." Even if their original !vote was thoughtless, based on no review of what was actually in the article and sources, etc. Or, more often, they won't be motivated to come back and !vote the same way, they simply won't show up.

Plus, of course, you may, at the same time, find new support or genuine conversion of editors who actually did know what they were doing when they !voted Delete. --Abd (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's pretty close to what I mean. If by default you have to manipulate others in such a way, instead of just clearly communicating with them - if they need help or special inducement to make the hard decisions EVERY TIME - to me that's the same as assuming they're really in pursuit of the ego-carrots you're going to dangle in front of their noses rather than seeking honest and egalitarian purposes.

I'm not saying that every admin is Ratso Rizzo but it appears to me that for most of them the standards they hold themselves to are pretty low. I'm noticing how few members of the admin community are really doing what's right every time I encounter them (and consequently I value such individuals all the more.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also - Requesting undeletion because of process wonkery (I.e., "right result, but bad process, therefore let's start over") is reasonably rejected. - I didn't request undeletion in my DRV, I specifically requested only that the article be listed in AfD for discussion and that everyone pour their vitriol against LirazSiri's article in there, for an above-the-board, WP-policy managed discussion. I specifically said I wasn't asking for undeletion (in VPP I said so, at least.) The "deletion confirmed" outcome of the DRV didn't even make sense since the deletion wasn't challenged by it - people wanted the article deleted so badly that they focused on answering a question that wasn't even asked. It's seeing that kind of thing as reasonable that I don't think I'll manage. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you asked for. If you felt you needed to say this, please reread what I wrote above, which was based in having read your nomination. I haven't suggested that you take on some polyanna view of people as reasonable, nor that any given comment was necessarily reasonable, but consider this: you believe the article should have been deleted, and that would have been your !vote in the AfD you wanted to see started. While in theory, DRV for a speedy should be confined to reviewing whether or not speedy criteria were followed -- which would make these reviews less contentious -- that is my theory and hasn't become a guideline (or has it?). Many editors believe that the function of DRV is to make a fresh decision on keep/delete, which is often accurate as to what DRV actually does, sometimes. They don't want Yet Another Debate that will come up with the same result. You really must understand this. Your nomination was taken as evidence for Deletion, which in this case meant Confirm. The confirmation is of the deletion, not of the admin's action, which, in the end, is properly irrelevant to the Confirm/Overturn decision.

You noticed the vitriol at the DRV. If this surprised you, you've been naive. Try to understand what I'm saying: AfD and DRV are frequently, practically inherently disruptive, leading to vitriol and incivility. I won't explain why, if you want my view on it, ask. It was noticed, comments referred to it, on both sides. It's not necessary for me, here, to take a side on that, though it's fairly obvious to me what happened. Politics, Struthious, wikipolitics. Wikisociety behaves like other societies, should this be surprising?

Avoid AfD and DRV if you can. It is usually possible to avoid DRV, there are easier ways to get an article back, provided that the advice I've given above is understood and followed. DRV is still there as a backup, and if you've done the preparatory work, DRV is only reasonably likely under three situations: you are faced with an intransigent closing admin who insists on deletion no matter what, or who believes that his or her job is simply to measure and follow consensus without taking personal responsibility for the decision, which will also lead to intransigence, or, alternatively, you are being intransigent, or third case, there is an unresolved, unclear issue over the notability of the article, which may be worth wider attention.

If you are attached to any part of this, whether to the notability or non-notability of the article, or to "correct" process that neglects the ultimate questions as to content, you will have difficulty with viewing others as reasonable, and thus in responding with civility and effective presentation of arguments and evidence.

Struthious, I have a natural advantage here, I have Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder which, while it is a true disorder causing some dysfunction, also gives me certain unusual abilities, one of which is to look at a situation from more than one perspective simultaneously. Sure, you can read what I've written as suggesting skillful manipulation. However, there are many ways to manipulate, some of which are beneficial to all parties, some of which are beneficial only to the manipulator, and some of which are just plain stupid. What I've done is to suggest a reframe of behavior that is designed to seek consensus. That is, want to get something done? Find consensus for it. But the fact is that to do this, one must be willing to modify the goal, unless one is so lucky as to start out with what will enjoy consensus naturally (or one is a highly skilled manipulator of people contrary to their natural interests, which can ultimately backfire). In the end, the behavior I described is a selfish way of looking at seeking consensus, but, you should note, it works even if you are wrong to start with. And, since I've been suggesting general rules for sane wiki behavior, here is another:

Always maintain in your mind the possibility that you are wrong, and that jerk who's been rudely getting in your way is right. Whether he's rude or not. You could be wrong about that too.

What do you do when someone rudely demands that you do the right thing? Simple answer, least likely to cause personal mental distress. Do it with as little fuss as possible, and as quickly as possible consistent with doing it right. If what is demanded is relatively harmless, it can also be quite useful to do it, even if it might not seem optimal, also without fuss. Remember the judo, it leaves the one who tries to harm you flat, perhaps having difficulty understanding what hit him. At the very least, it doesn't feed enmity.

Personal example, from my experience here: When I became seriously involved as an editor, it was because of a situation I found where an article was being controlled by a COI editor supported by sock puppets. Nasty situation. I managed to dismantle it. Then, pursuing a long-term interest in wikis and similar process (dating way probably something like thirty years), I started to work on Wikipedia structure. This is often not taken well, I'm not the first person to run into hostility. Ultimately, when I confronted what looked to me like a particular administrative and procedural error, to make a long story short, I was blocked. Part of the block justification was my focus on the structure, which almost necessarily involves dealing with conflict, which looks like a seeking of WP:WIKIDRAMA. In the flap that ensued, I was told that I should really be editing articles, like a good little Drone, though without the D word. Now, I could easily have dismissed that. After all, I have over thirty years experience with consensus organizations, anarchic structures, and study of how to make them durable and efficient. Surely my work on structure is more important than the few edits I could make to articles. Consider the affair for which I was blocked. While I was blocked, another editor took up the cause, and it was successful, and the result was that a very young and very productive editor was returned to function; the likelihood that this editor's contributions, eventually, would overshadow anything I could personally do with article edits is great; and, in fact, I think that she was already there before I began working on the case.

However, old judo trick: accept the opponent's movement, do not resist it, move with it. Join it. In judo, this ends up with the opponent flat on the ground, having thrown himself there, albeit with a little help. (That only works if the "opponent" is trying to harm you. Otherwise, you just do a nice little dance....)

So, hey, why not? I installed Twinkle and off I went, doing Recent Changes patrol. It's like a video game: be the first to recognize a piece of vandalism and revert it and welcome/warn/threaten the editor. At some times of day, you've got to be quick! But at those times of day, you can look further down the RC listings and find stuff that was missed, sometimes.

Now, what did this do? Well, the first salutary effect, besides fixing some articles (nothing says I can't improve an article I come across because a vandal hit it.... or sometimes, vandalism isn't obvious, and sources need to be checked, and if the sources weren't there in the first place, it's a great opportunity to add one or more. Besides some of these articles are interesting and, my, isn't she beautiful and smart and talented? .... etc.): the admin whom I had supposedly attacked, the basis for my block, noticed what I was doing and spontaneously offered me the rollback privilege. And is now a reliable partner.

Probably because I didn't attack him, but instead went through a patient process of a self-RfC, a process which I've more or less invented, the admin who warned me, which set a precondition for my block, has also become quite helpful. I didn't move on to deal with the block itself, and I'm not sure it would be worthwhile. Originally, I put in the effort to address the block because I knew that once blocked, next block happens more easily; but now, I feel very little risk of being blocked more than transiently, and even that seems unlikely day-to-day, even though I'm now addressing some fairly large systemic issues, such as blacklisting/whitelisting process, which definitely needs some attention, I played a role in making sure that the ban of a certain editor was not as widely misunderstood as certain propaganda would have promoted -- you can see some warnings generated by that, still on this page --, and have challenged the use-of-tools while involved by an admin, as well as a series of the involved actions. The latter situation is set to produce my first user RfC, I'd been trying to avoid it, but it's practically been forced.

I also ran up, I don't know, maybe a few thousand edits fairly quickly, I didn't really keep track. My name was then in front of many editors and administrators, doing regular cleanup work. So next time they see my name on a noticeboard or whatever, the response has been shifted.

My own attitude also shifted, in subtle ways. I knew about consensus and its value, of course, already. But something deepened.

Recently, I became aware of a whole can of worms, the admin abuse I mention above, which led to discovering the blacklist/whitelist problems, and it got in the way of my Recent Changes patrolling. I'm hoping to finish working on the problem soon, so I can return to playing Whack-a-Mole, it's definitely more fun in the short term. Or editing articles more seriously, which has also started again. Studying the blacklist led me to finding a blacklisted source that is actually RS, I proposed local whitelisting which was ultimately accepted even though I had to go to WP:AN to break the logjam, and we may end up with a few hundred new articles, possibly, or at least a few hundred other articles improved. But one step at a time. Try to do any of this quickly, and .... resistance appears, and the more you push the more the resistance. Classic problem with a classic solution. --Abd (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have ADD too. (hand shake, high five)

I apologize if I've misunderstood you at some points but the way you phrase things is such that they can often be interpreted multiple ways.

But I do appreciate the advice you've laid out here as well as the work you've put in on Wikipedia. You definitely seem like the sort of person who should be doing Recent Changes patrolling, moreso than many of the individuals I've met doing it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Imagine what it's like when I try to be brief without being polemic! (Polemic is speech designed to influence opinion in a specific, desired way. I can write polemic, but it's not what I usually do.) But don't worry about those other people doing RC patrolling. They contribute, some of them contribute monumentally. It doesn't have to all be right, as long as most of it is right, we can fix the rest. IP editors are in a shaky position. We want them, because a great deal of content improvement comes from them, but if they have variable IP, they won't really know what hit them, so to speak. ADHD, yes. The good news and the bad news. I wouldn't trade my life for "normal" for anything. But ... it can be hard on people in relationship with me, and it can even be hard on me. It's essential for me to understand how I'm different from others and how others are different from me and to factor for it. One of the big hazards of having ADHD, of the variety I have, is that an attitude that others are stupid can easily develop. It gets a lot of us. The truth is that we are different, we are better at some things and worse at others. If everyone were like me, well, the subways wouldn't run. On the other hand, if people like me didn't exist, society would become rigid and unable to adapt to new circumstances. I.e., the variation is functional. Athens condemned Socrates to death. Contrary to their expectations, he didn't flee, he drank the hemlock. And Athens' power was destroyed, because it could not adapt to changing circumstances. See User:Abd/Rule 0 --Abd (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some very good thoughts in this section. However here's something I disagree quite strongly with:

"Suppose the deletion was improper, that it should have gone to AfD instead. Is there any reason to believe that it might survive AfD?" Your expressed position, Struthious, is that the topic is insufficiently supported by reliable source, i.e., you have claimed that it would properly not survive AfD. Thus, in closing with a confirmation, your nomination would have been read that way. Requesting undeletion because of process wonkery (I.e., "right result, but bad process, therefore let's start over") is reasonably rejected.

I disagree; the deletion was not necessarily black and white, and in theory in cases where there is a large gray area, the incorrect process only clouds whatever would be the just result - in other words spending a discussion on BOTH the speedy issue AND the merits of deletion leads to a dissonance of logic. Do I really need to give the merits of following process? What about offending the editors, or getting people's backs up? What if Liraz Sari would have been content with a normal AfD outcome but instead is scourned by a blatant lack of process? Its inciteful. And after many hours working on her article she is entitled to a solid discussion not clouded by abuse of process. However, one could say that a Speedy-Deletion should not get challenged in a deletion-review, because the purpose of a Deletion Review is not to judge admin actions and their rightfulness; that is the job of AN/I. So if a speedy-deletion is challenged in AN/I, then I strongly feel their mandate is to correct the process here: the speedy-delete should have been overturned and moved to AfD for proper discussion where users that are (allegedly) experienced at judging articles for deletion can assess an outcome. Again, in theory the AN/I people are good at understanding admin tasks, the people in AfD (which include non-admins) are good at understanding deletion guidelines. We have the processes in place, and if the deletionists are going to be so beaurocratic with their deletions, they can be beurocratic about their @#$#ing processes. :p Rfwoolf (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there is no merit in following process. What I'm claiming is that there is very substantial opinion, perhaps a majority of those who participate in these things, that content issues trump process. See the section heading here, and substantial agreement -- including more specified agreement from me -- that speedy deletions that did not clearly meet speedy conditions should be quickly reversed. They should not automatically go to AfD, that's up to whoever wants to delete the article to decide and to file. I would actually take these decisions out of DRV itself into a special page where this is clearly specified. WP:Speedy deletion review. At that page, the only debate that is in order is the applicability of speedy deletion criteria. The existence of substantial dissent to the deletion should result in speedy close of the discussion with reversal. New criteria should not be invented during the debate. (That's to avoid the confusion of arguments that happens in these things. However, any admin could decide to close the original discussion as insufficiently, but, for the record, undelete and redelete specifying a criterion the admin considers valid, and this should not be the original deleting admin.) The goal is not a decision on keep/delete, the goal is to prevent useless unfocused discussion. If a speedy discussion is quickly closed, there has been little or no wasted editor time. On the other hand, if there is little or no cogent argument for overturn, besides the nominator, and the discussion is open for a week, that should be it. Deletion remains. The guideline would be worked out on the page.

However, once again, there are some troubling assumptions here. "If a speedy-deletion is challenged in AN/I...." Such a challenge should be limited to administrative abuse. I am aware that there may be a reasonable claim of such in the present case, but AN/I will tend, my observation, to turn the report there into a debate over notability, and possible admin abuse will be pushed aside and disregarded. The final part of your comment, R, shows that you have bought into the conflict of inclusionism vs. deletionism, and this leads you to an imbalanced view. It's not "us" vs "them." It's just "us." Want to deal with the problem? Change the guidelines and process, which will require finding consensus. It's not easy, but it is exactly what needs to be done. You won't succeed if you maintain the "us vs. them" attitude, because those who disagree with you will dig in their heels.

So, I named a proposed page above. If you create it and notify me, I'll participate. Consider this: if deletionists waste their time battling over marginal issues, they will be less able to find and delete or nominate the thousands upon thousands of inappropriate pages. I'm an inclusionist, but I also understand the important task that deletionists perform, and, in fact, most "deletionists" are more nuanced or balanced than the term implies, and it's only a few dedicated, perhaps even fanatic, editors who make for the bad reputation. How about User:Killerofcruft? The name itself was confrontational. It means "I destroy what you love." If there was ever a clear violation of WP:BATTLE, there it was. After some time, he requested a name change, but the fact is that the original name was exactly appropriate for what he was doing, and you can get an idea of the scope of strong deletionist perspective by looking at those who supported him and encouraged him. He openly said and did what they thought but wouldn't say because ... it could get them blocked. --Abd (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Suciindia

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Suciindia. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you request that I reply on your talk page. But for reference here, I'll say that the above message, while potentially helpful, doesn't tell me if anything needs to be done, or exactly how to do it, at least not quickly. For future categories I create, I'll be careful to follow the FAQ, assuming that it is intelligible to me. If not, now I know who to ask! --Abd (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing you need to do for the categories right now. If you study how I amended them, you'll quickly see what you should do if you ever create sockpuppet categories in the future. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your comment above didn't refer to your corrections, but when I looked at my Watchlist, there they were, and they made clear what was needed, and that you had fixed it. So I reverted my talkback on your Talk page. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

I was doing new page patrol and ran across this: [12]. Good.

By the way, I've proposed a new page patrol competition and am looking for people to sign up. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know, I've got a few things to do first. --Abd (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected_User:Fredrick_day_sock

As you participated in checkuser discussions pertaining to the above, your insights may be helpful. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This was archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Suspected_User:Fredrick_day_sock. A whole boatload of socks were found by checkuser. And I hardly had to lift a finger. I don't know if my comment helped, but I did conclude that the suspicion was reasonable.

Okay, I should make something clear, I didn't notice this in the report from the checkuser. Fredrick day uses multiple IP access. He is quite capable of making two accounts seem unrelated; the socks were multiple accounts from the same user as Ntoo2B. The checkuser report considered Ntoo2B to be unrelated to the IP, but the IP to be possibly Fredrick day. Since FD popped in with that IP to claim that Ntoo2B wasn't FD, that was a no-brainer (and we already knew that FD had used that range and, I think, that specific IP. Checkuser concluded that Ntoo2B and the IP were not related, something I questioned; however, FD is perfectly capable of simulating independent access within limits, and I don't know the extent of the CU evidence on which the conclusion of not related was based. I'd consider the matter open, but largely moot. WThe identified "master" is obviously is not the original account, that was simply as far back as checkuser could go, the user wasn't new.

It's an odd coincidence that a big sock drawer is opened because a user suspects that one of them is Fredrick Day based on behavior. Possible. But, more likely, this was just FD displaying his ability to use multiple ISPs, he's bragged about it and demonstrated it before. --Abd (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

However, if the checkuser found that the editor was clearly located elsewhere than where FD operates, that would be another matter. There are techniques for appearing that you are coming from somewhere else, and I don't know how sophisticated our system is in detecting all that. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Triple tracks in CR-39.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Triple tracks in CR-39.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed the information in the form provided, but the URL for the source was somehow stripped out. It's in the edit summary. It's an image provided with a press release by the American Chemical Society. The ACS page gives permission information, which stated "No restrictions." None of the templates seem to contemplate a release by an author (photographer) other than the uploader, yet this image was clearly released into the public domain, and it has been widely used in major media yesterday and by many web sites. I'm not sure that I've done it right, the lack of an appropriate permissions template worries me. I put in a template for a general release, with the credited photographer as the one releasing. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturwissenschaften

See what their editors and description have to say. It is a Life sciences journal. Springer has been publishing this for a long time, they ought to know what it covers.LeadSongDog come howl 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely an oddity there. LSD, did you look at the quote I put up? Yes, I saw what you saw, but the basic page on the publication shows something quite different. You are using searches for "life sci", so you find what you are looking for. Why are you looking for this? I'll speculate, but I won't write it.

Okay, "they ought to know what it covers." From what I wrote at Talk:Cold_fusion#Die_Naturwissenschaften_isn.27t_properly_described_as_a_.22Life_Sciences.22_journal:

[13], I took it out. This has been raised before, the SPAWAR results, published there, were discounted previously based on a claim that they were being published in a journal that wouldn't have adequate resources to review the work. At that time, I pointed out that the journal is a publication of the Max Planck Institut, and that it is, like Nature (journal), a general journal covering the natural sciences. [14]: Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research following rigorous peer-review process and publishes a whole array of work that reflects the contemporary developments across the broad field of the natural sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. However, this does not exclude the publication of high-quality topical articles, which will continue to be the core of the journal.

Chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR) is a field which crosses the boundary between chemistry and nuclear physics. The journal is actually an ideal place to publish such research. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Physics is a natural science. Why they have the journal classified under Life Sciences is not clear, but they have no category for "General Natural Science," and I notice that most articles are, indeed, in what could be called Life Sciences, but the claim before was that, because they are a "Life Science" journal, they wouldn't have the review facilities to assess an article in chemistry or physics. That's why I've pointed out that they are published by the Max Planck Institut. You have, perhaps, heard of Herr Planck?

[15] repeats their desire for interdisciplinary papers:

Competition for space in Naturwissenschaften is keen, and the journal receives many more good manuscripts than can be accepted for publication. Current rejection rate reaches about 50% of all submitted work. Preference is thus given to scholarly works that present a compelling case for significant advances in a subject area or are of broader interest because of their interdisciplinary nature. Preliminary reports or work that just confirms previous findings, as well as articles that are likely to interest small specialist group only, will not be considered.

Calling this a "life sciences" journal in the text of the article provides a clear POV slant, attempting to impeach reliable sources has been frequently done with Cold fusion. Don't do it. --Abd (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm neutral on that. On the diff I reverted, I objected more to the rest of changes done in it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric, reverting changes that you don't object to, when the changes were as small as this, is a tad rude. I.e., take out what you need to take out, but leave what you can. It builds cooperation. --Abd (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is a hallmark of every fringe topic that there are unreliable sources advanced as trustworthy. It is accordingly necessary to look carefully at all sources. We should not shrink from doing so. Naturwissenshaften is of course a fine, highly regarded journal, but there are many more clearly multidisciplinary journals. The authors could have approached one with a more direct focus on the relevant topic areas, but they chose this one - so why? Ease of correspondence between Berlin and San Diego? The expectation that its readership (of biologists etc) would be particularly well equipped to provide insightful feedback? It's not a reason that jumps out at you.LeadSongDog come howl 06:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

using "cold fusion" in the cold fusion article

What does this edit summary mean? (...) Been saying for some time, the field is LENR, not "cold fusion." (...). I already know that they changed the name to avoid the negative connotations, but we use "cold fusion" which is still the most common name in english, and is also the title of the article, and is also how it's called in the source, ffs. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cold fusion" is a popular term. The press release was aimed at media, so that term was used in the headline. However, what did the DOE call the topic in 1989 and 2004? And if it isn't fusion, perhaps, this nuclear effect being seen, why is it in the "cold fusion" article? I can answer that question, but my emerging opinion is that we should have this kind of structure:

Condensed matter nuclear science, an article on chemically-assisted nuclear reactions or other nuclear behavior that is particular to condensed matter. Refers to other related articles, including muon-catalyzed fusion. Covers notable conferences on the topic, publication in the field, and the known science. This article would cover current scientific knowledge and experimental reports relating to the topic. It would include what is called "cold fusion," though that might be a separate article, Fusion in metal deuterides.

Fleischmann-Pons effect which describes the specific phenomenon of excess heat found in palladium loaded to a high ration with deuterium, and the specific scientific history of rejection and confirmation of that effect. This article may include a detailed discussion of calorimetry, or may, again, summarize a specific article:

Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments.

Coverage of evidence of nuclear transmutations would be in, big surprise, nuclear transmutation.

Cold fusion would not itself be a science article, but would cover the history and response of the media and scientific community to the 1989 affair and as it has been ongoing. It would, of course, refer to the other articles for the science.

All of the articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, would be required to be NPOV and verifiable. Subarticles would be created when coverage of a subtopic, as found in reliable source, begins to unbalance or overfill an existing article.

Enric, look at the diff you pointed out. Krivit wrote that it might not be fusion, but some other nuclear reaction. He's correct. Why why should we call it "cold fusion"?

There is a possibility, for example, that the neutrons are coming from hot fusion in the lattice. There is some evidence for localized hot spots. What if these become very hot on occasion, but on a very small scale. The neutrons might be hot fusion of tritium/deuterium, from the tritium impurities in the heavy water, caused by high energy conditions caused by localized cold fusion. The point I was making is that the field is actually low-energy nuclear reactions, that's what the DOE called it in 2004. Why are we insisting on a name which, though certainly common, implies conclusions? --Abd (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's the most common name, by far. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly why it is the proper name for the popular, media, and general scientific community (as distinct from those involved in researching or reviewing it) topic. That does not make it the proper name for the science as reflected in peer-reviewed journals, where other names are used. Did the DOE in 2004 review "cold fusion" or did it review "low energy nuclear reactions"?

Certainly there is an interplay between the names. The ICCF was renamed CMNS, but they keep the cold fusion name to show the continuity with prior conferences. See Welcome to the 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which is also known as the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14)[16]. See also [17], with a list of the conferences. In addition to the ICCFs, there are been many other conferences on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, including 12 in Russia, six in Japan, six in Italy, besides many sessions at various intellectual society conferences, such as the American Physical, Chemical and Nuclear Societies.

The Fleischmann-Pons effect is actually quite well-established, serious opposition to it died out long ago, with the objections to the prior failures to confirm never being cogently answered in peer-reviewed journals, to my knowledge. The origin of the effect remains quite controversial, and this is why dumping it all into one article that presumes a cause, a cause still widely rejected, as if the effect itself were rejected by scientific consensus. Some of the media reports this week have essentially claimed that ("nobody could confirm it."). In 2004, the DOE report was evenly divided on whether or not the effect was real; roughly one-third of the reviewers thought that there was a nuclear explanation. Obviously, if you don't think it happens, you don't accept a nuclear -- or any -- explanation other than possibly experimenter bias or wishful thinking or other error.

The current matter with the Mosier-Boss paper is fascinating. It really is no big surprise at all to those in the field, and that it made such a big splash is due to the background of automatic rejection of the topic by both the media and some segements in the scientific community. It doesn't confirm the Fleischman-Pons effect, the level of neutrons detected would probably not result in any measurable excess heat. But what isn't being said is the background: the neutron radiation is found, at very low levels (but well above background, and correlated with the cathode, and not found with controls), on the back side of the detectors, where the primary radiation product, ionizing radiation (probably alpha, i.e., energetic helium nuclei), can't reach, it's non-penetrating. But it causes massive pitting on the side next to the cathode, if the experiment is run as long as the ones in which the neutrons were found. And that effect is directly correlated with the production of excess heat: you don't get the heat, you don't get that level of radiation. Plus if you get the heat, you get helium, at levels correlated, in quite a number of reports, with the amount of heat generated. By the way, if they place the detectors outside the cell, against a thin mylar window, they get the apparent alpha radiation at reduced levels, as would be expected from the loss in the mylar, which just wreaks havoc on the alternate explanations advanced of dendritic damage or chemical damage or damage from corona discharge. No way, however, that the triple tracks are caused by anything other than proton recoil from high energy neutrons. By the way, see CR-39 for some images showing the triple-track effect. Some of the media reported that they found "three tracks," as if this were a report based on three isolated tracks, or even one set of three. I predicted that there would be blog response ridiculing the report based on this, and then I saw it.

Enric, there is a huge bias out there against cold fusion. The skepticism is quite warranted, but the automatic assumption that dedicated and professional researchers who've been working in the field for twenty years are bumbling idiots enthusiastically reporting something of no significance, is, shall we say, not warranted. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh, if this about the "very significant" bit in the article, it's the researchers themselves who are saying it. I suppose that they must believe that it's really significant, and that it's necessary to say so? Anyways, the article needs to point out that the CR-39 is considered significant by proponents. (I mean, dude, I'm tired of people on the talk page bring up so many times how the CR-39 thing finally provides evidence of cold fusion, as if it was the Holy Grial of CF or something).

To sum it up, you talk as if adding that bit was an insult towards the researchers, but, man, they themselves felt the need to say it! --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Krivit is being politically cagey, he is (correctly) pointing out that the neutrons might be coming from some process other than fusion. Lots of weird stuff, apparently, happens in the lattice. There is another paper, I think I called attention to it on Monday, that provides a theoretical basis for deuterium fusion in the palladium lattice, and that allegedly predicts the reaction levels found, plus his radiation measurements and reports. None of this mentions "cold fusion." Fleischmann's discovery of excess heat was rejected on the basis of theory regarding fusion. What if he had, instead, published a quiet little paper on anomalous excess heat, with no explanation other than, perhaps, an obvious speculation and a suggestion for further research? What if that original publication had emphasized how difficult it was to obtain the phenomenon? It's now well-known in the field how to get it with reasonable reliability, but it's still difficult. The difficulty may result in the process being unusable commercially, as one possible consequence. CMNS is not about "free energy." But we don't know what's possible. Maybe cheap, clean, renewable energy. Or not. To find out will take a lot of money, unless some garage experimenter happens upon something that is easily reproducible and robust enough to use in a commercial product. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, I'm not going to argue on what would if have happened if things had been done differently. F and P made it that way, and the "cold fusion" name stuck. (btw, DOE 1989 uses "cold fusion" all over the place", and the DOE 2004 report uses "cold fusion" four times and "low energy nuclear reactions" nine, including the title. Not bad for a field that is supossedly not called that way at all. Mind you, that would establish the usage in government reports, it would still leave the common usage in mainstream, general public, scientists in general, journals, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I have not said that the field isn't called "cold fusion." I also call it that, frequently. But it is not precise, and incorporates assumptions. You've called the palladium/deuterium co-deposition cells (that's what Mosier-Boss calls them and that is precisely what they are) "cold fusion cells." Does that mean that fusion at low temperatures is taking place in them? By the general usages, the Arata work with palladium black or other finely powdered palladium alloy, pressurized with deuterium, no electrolyis or energy input other than the transient chemical energy released when palladium absorbs deuterium, is a "cold fusion cell." Radically different in structure and operation (in Arata's recent work, the thing just sits there emitting heat steadily for a very long time, I don't see any limit in the reports, but they stop the experiment and open them up after some time to look for helium), but the common factor is that palladium is loaded to 1:1 with deuterium. Other metals are used besides palladium, some of them apparently show the effects. "Cold fusion cell," then, is a huge blanket category, encompassing many types of experiments.

In the subject text, I replaced "cold fusion cell," which really tells us very little about the cell, with "palladium-deuterium co-deposition cell." It is neutral and accurate. What's the problem? As Krivit points out, maybe it isn't fusion. If it isn't fusion but some other kind of nuclear reaction, would it still be appropriate to call it a "cold fusion cell"? --Abd (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied you at Talk:Cold_fusion#cold_fusion_cell, both sources use "cold fusion" all over the place including the title, and one of them specifically call the cells "cold fusion devices". I think that's pretty clear.... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric, this, once again, raises the issue of what the article Cold fusion is about. Is it a science article or is it a popular phenomenon article? (The history of science is a history of human efforts and opinions.) Absolutely, the cells are cold fusion cells. An grenade is an explosive. If we report an event, we could use general language, such as, the soldier died because of an explosion in his foxhole. Or we could be a little more specific, an explosive device was tossed in his foxhole, or we could say that it was a grenade. If our sources show that it was a grenade, should we use the more general term? "Cold fusion cell" is actually quite general, it covers many different kinds of experiments that are designed to show the effects of low-energy nuclear reactions. "Palladium-deuterium co-deposition" is a specific technique, quite notable and probably deserving of its own article; it has unique characteristics. You will not find "cold fusion cell" used in the research papers, beyond reference to the popular concepts. The papers are about the Pd-D system or Ni-D, etc. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific papers use specialized tech-speak that would only confuse the readers if we used it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So we should use confusing pop-speak that carries a POV? Enric, this is an encyclopedia. We define terms if they aren't obvious. Co-deposition should be defined in the article or in its own article, and if they are reading the Cold fusion article this far, we can assume that they know what palladium is and what deuterium is. The argument you are giving is a classic argument made by POV editors who want to predigest subjects for the readership, not trusting that they will be able to understand the issues and make their own choices. I just got the first of the pile of books I ordered on this subject, and it is utterly fascinating, A dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, by Nate Hoffman. It says, back in 1995, just about exactly what I've been saying over the last two months on Talk:Cold fusion. Now there is reliable source for it. Watch. Have you read the book, Enric? --Abd (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In Talk:Cold_fusion#cold_fusion_cell I have listed a good amount of sources using "cold fusion cell", including several papers hosted at lenr-car.org and several cold fusion conferences.

Anyways, you might well be right in that someone that has read so far can realize that it's a cold fusion cell even if we don't call it that way (and it probably be guessed by context anyways). My head hurts and I'm quite involved with this, so I could just be too stubborn in the matter. I'm leaving it for other editors to determine if it's confusing to call it a "palladium-deuterium co-deposition cell" and rewrite for clarity if it's necessary. I'd rather argue over more important things, like the sentences following that sentence, you know, the ones that we were arguing to mention Padley and Krivit or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

30 days for rfc have passed

It's been already 30 days since the MfD for User:Abd/JzG. I'll wait a few more days, in case you forgot about it, and then I'll ask that it gets deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it was getting close. It's not crucial, though it will probably be a little simpler if the page remains instead of the evidence being replaced when needed from my off-line copy (or through undeletion). There will be a question of where it lives. The problem with the deletion is that the page was cited in an ArbComm request and there were relevant comments made that were clearly based on it, but that's ArbComm's problem. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The draft is up, still a few things to add. I expect it will be moved to RfC space this week. --Abd (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Abd. I... don't even know what came over me. Such ridiculous BS really isn't like me, so perhaps I just "needed a break". Anyway, thanks. I appreciate your words of wisdom. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to all of us. I can understand how it looked to you, as if you were being stonewalled. What speaks very well in your favor is that you looked again. Too many editors, once they have stuck their foot in their mouth, then argue tenaciously that it's bloomin' obvious it belongs there, how dare you demand that they remove it? So it's quite refreshing to see and editor say, "Oops! My bad!" and move on. These are the best editors. There are no editors who don't make mistakes, unless they don't make many edits. --Abd (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning an article

On Sustainability article there is a team that has been editing the article for months. Most every problem is met by them getting tighter control on the article, and then complaining that bringing certain things to attention, is stopping them from editing... which I do not believe to be true. Mostly it is two people that edit in tandem, Sunray being the ostensible leader. I have edited the article also as you know... but the team is not only not friendly toward me... they are hostile. Recently I pointed out that a team member there Granitethighs who authored a book that he reffed/linked in the article to cite an entire section, may have a conflict of interest, or may be spamming his book. I think he is. Apparently other team members were aware of his book without revealing that information. He became a wiki editor about the time his book was published and started an entire article also from scratch using his book as the back bone sourcing of the article Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838

He reffed his book this many times below in the article he created. The book is done under the auspices also of where he is affiliated.

^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2.

More recently three editors in the team have said that I am editing tendentiously because I have brought up two things consistently recently... one being Granitethighs book, which I believe is non notable... and over reffing the U.N. in the article. This persons book... also uses the U.N. as a jumping off point, and one user on the article has said previously that he is involved in the U.N. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=277864633&oldid=277817578 it seems to me that a good B article is being used to showcase the U.N. it is not Sustainability and the U.N. it is just Sustainability. I have added lots of reff's and sources mostly to scientific things. I wrote the history section largely, and other information pieces here and there in the article. I have found editor Sunray to use any method of slanting things to be in a bad light toward myself. I might just ignore the article for a while and leave it at that... but it bothers me that it is over controlled... and a person is putting their book on it... without that being discussed or revealed... until it was brought up, seems way over the top as to neutral editing and seems very much crossing a line. Also that they are wildly attacking me (my opinion) for bringing up that issue. skip sievert (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Page of Shibdas Ghosh, Linked to SUCI

I now see a new IP editing the wiki page of Shibdas Ghosh. He is removing a citated evidence stating that it is not a reliable source. It is a journal published from India of which the editors are reputed people. Please look into it.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hot Stain Comment

I have left a comment for you on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_stain. Gigs (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd/JzG

Are you going to file an RfAr using the material? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)cl

I certainly hope not. As you might recall, the page was already used as evidence before an RfAR/Clarification; however, that RfAR, filed by JzG, was rejected as premature. At the time the evidence page was compiled, there were a few arbitrators tending toward confirmation of the request. After the evidence was put up, the tide turned toward what was clearly much more appropriate: rejection based on lack of proper prior process, and there was reference, direct and indirect, to my comment, which was founded on the evidence page. (JzG had unexpectedly bypassed almost the entire dispute resolution process, jumping to RfAr.)

It remains possible that JzG will come to his senses. However, his tendentious involvement with Cold fusion has continued, with edit warring at Martin Fleischmann without regard to consensus process and simply repeating arguments after there has been careful examination and rejection of them. This is background here and is only intended to explain my own actions.

The RfC never was an "attack page" or "laundry list of grievances," if you look at it. With the exception of "conclusions," It was an attempt at a neutral examination of JzG's involvement with Cold fusion and related articles, necessary to understand his administrative actions with respect to related articles and involved editors. If a list of diffs or logs from an editor, particularly when compiled completely as to relevant pages, with very little comment, is an "attack," the editor has a problem.

What I have done, now, is to create a draft RfC, referring to the evidence page, which should be ready to move to RfC space today or certainly within the next few days, it's at User:Abd/JzG/RfC.

Why did I wait so long? It should be realized that I've been loathe to impeach an administrator as long as lesser measures did not suffice. It really is not fun. Administrators are volunteers, do or have done a great deal of work, and probably the bulk of it is useful. In spite of my conclusion that JzG's actions have deeply damaged Wikipedia in certain areas, I'd have preferred for the community at large, and especially those administrators who share his POV on fringe issues, to restrain their friend, to allow him to continue his useful work with the tools. They have not. The MfD essentially forced this, but the extended time allowed me to, for a time, put it at the bottom of my to-do list. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised (but not completely so) by the result of the MfD for this page. After all, there was ample precedent that such pages are allowed to be kept publicly viewable for completely indefinite periods of time, and even when they contain commentary that goes well beyond the mere collection of diff's. I guess it pays to be an administrator so that you can just do whatever you want. For my part, I have not actually asked to have Raul's page deleted because it actually works in my favor in that it clearly demonstrates the blind bias on Raul's part. I couldn't prepare a better set of diffs and associated commentary to illustrate Raul's bias even if I wanted to. --GoRight (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia process will never be understood without having some understanding of the involved politics. The MfD for this page was very strange, because by filing it, JzG essentially forced me to file the RfC. I have difficulty imagining what he was thinking, if he was thinking and not just reacting. He may have been counting on my inertia, he may believe his own rhetoric, he may be counting on his many friends to support him, and he's won many battles before, but generally only where participation bias works in his favor. It is not true that if you are an administrator, you can "do whatever you want" without consequence. However, "consequence" may require that more than one editor seriously confront the issues, it is a huge hassle, and there are usually ways to finesse the problem with respect to any given particular situation, so many conclude it's not worth it. However, at some point, if a problem isn't transient, someone realizes that there is an ongoing problem, that it is causing continued damage, that this damage is serious, and thus it must be addressed. If this user rushes in, and is not already highly placed politically, forget it, the user is dead meat, because of the instinctive support. Sooner or later, though, someone with the understanding and means to address the problem will come into contact with it. Everything is recorded; however, there is currently a discussion on the speedy deletion guideline talk page about the deletion of indef blocked user pages. Some see no problem with that, but others -- rightly, in my view -- point out that this conceals editor history from all but admins, narrowly constricting the field of editors with the capacity to review prior actions to those who are also admins and who generally don't have the time to do what it takes to deal with a long-term issue like this, besides the problem of entrusting police review to the police. We could set up process for wider review of deletions that would be more or less like PROD, with some better-designed criteria to allow deletion of truly useless stuff in user space, but if any substantial segment of the editor community want to keep this stuff, it should be kept; preserving history preserves the rights of present minorities to eventually make their case to the community, and it actually takes less effort than deleting it. There is no storage cost issue. --Abd (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Emailed to you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

looooooong comments at Talk:Cold fusion

[Enric Naval:] I have collapsed three of your comments, two for readability and the third one for readability and OR(*). People who want to read them can uncollapse the boxs.

• I'm going to intersperse, the bulleted, italic comments are mine, and I'll sign each paragraph. You are entitled to your opinion, Enric. I don't edit war over collapse boxes. I let others judge if my comments are worth reading or not. --Abd (talk)

• You say that you won't edit war and that you will let others editors judge on your comments, but you reverted two of my three collapsings.... [18][19] Apparently you will only accept "'friendly' and selective collapse"[20].... You also say "(...)Don't try to stop others from reading it, but efforts to organize what I've written into what should be on top level and what should be collapsed are just fine(...)"[21] Putting all together actions and words, it looks like you are decided to have the last word on what gets collapsed in your comments and why, never mind what you state about letting other people decide.

• Also, I don't agree that my hatnote wasn't neutral[22]. If you don't like to be told that your comments are OR, then you should stop writing OR, specially after several editors have asked you to stop the OR (myself, Phil153, maybe Noren, and others, I would have to look it up) Yeah, I know, you think that your level of OR is acceptable, but, when you have several people telling you that you are wrong on something, then it's time to realize that maybe you are wrong after all. (I bet that jed, and maybe Pcarbonn and other cold fusion proponents, are telling you off-wiki that your comments are very appropiate and that you keep going, but you should be taking their input with a sack of salt, after all the talk page comments of Jed and Pcarbonn paid an important role in getting them banned so they haven't exactly shown that they know what you can put on a wikipedia talk page and what you can't! I am not a wiki guru, but at least I manage to not get myself banned) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.D.: and after me posting this message you still keep uncollapsing your comments [23]... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(*) not just OR but also endless repetition of the same analysis of the DOE review ("one-third of the panel thought that" etc.), which was already beaten to death by Pcarbonn and Jed. Use some secondary source that analyzes the results, like the Scientific American [24], which ends with a quote from the principal deputy director of science of the DOE:

"When asked if this meant that nothing had changed since the last DOE review, Decker replies, 'I think that may be a fair comment'."

• Eh? That's fair? The report itself says that little had changed. However, changed about what? You've got to understand what the charge was, the task; ultimately it was to recommend or not recommend a special federal program funding LENR research. What they concluded in 1989 and what they concluded in 2004 seem about the same to me. However, the overall attitude shifted. Now, I haven't read the individual reviews from the 1989 report. Here is what the article from the Sci Am article you cited says that indicates the kind of consensus present:

Eighteen nuclear physicists, electrochemists and materials scientists reviewed research submitted by Hagelstein and his colleagues. In its December 2004 report, the DOE stated that when it came to whether the evidence for excess power was compelling or not, the panel split about evenly. When it came to whether nuclear reactions took place in the experiments, the report noted that two thirds of reviewers found the evidence unconvincing, one person found it compelling, and the remainder were somewhat convinced.

• That is pretty much the same as what the DOE report says, itself. This is the kind of information that was removed from the article. What was it like in 1989?

• I haven't seen a "vote" breakdown from 1989. However, one thing is clear to me: the 1989 report was far more supportive of "cold fusion" than it has been made out to be. If something in 1989 "killed" cold fusion, that report was not it. It recommended further research. The DOE does not recommend further research on N-rays or polywater. And as to 2004, a panel of the DOE would not be evenly split on the question of excess heat if cold fusion was "junk science."

• The 1989 report makes it to be a major objection that helium had not been shown. Since then, helium has been reported at levels consistent with the excess heat, in controlled experiments; and note that good measurement of helium turns negative heat results into confirmations of cold fusion, if no heat is correlated with no helium, which has been reported; this dismantles one of the major arguments against cold fusion on which the 1989 report depended.

• From the 2004 report, what the CF researchers were asserting:

1. “The existence of a physical effect that produces heat in metal deuterides. The heat is measured in quantities greatly exceeding all known chemical processes and the results are many times in excess of determined errors using several kinds of apparatus. In addition, the observations have been reproduced, can be reproduced at will when the proper conditions are reproduced, and show the same patterns of behavior. Further, many of the reasons for failure to reproduce the heat effect have been discovered.”

2. “The production of 4He as an ash associated with this excess heat, in amounts commensurate with a reaction mechanism consistent with D+D 􀃆 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat)”. :::3. “A physical effect that results in the emission of: (a) energetic particles consistent with d(d,n)3He and d(d,p)t fusions reactions, and (b) energetic alphas and protons with energies in excess of 10 MeV, and other emissions not consistent with deuteron-deuteron reactions.”

• In 1989, there was no claim of helium finding. In 2004, the claim is discussed:

The hypothesis that excess energy production in electrolytic cells is due to low energy nuclear reactions was tested in some experiments by looking for D + D fusion reaction products, in particular 4He, normally produced in about 1 in 107 in hot D + D fusion reactions. Results reported in the review document purported to show that 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat. The detected 4He was typically very close to, but reportedly above background levels. This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause for false positive results in some measurements.

• Completely missing from this is the details on control. How much helium would be expected from the excess heat reported? What was found, and I believe reported to the panel, was that the levels of helium reported were commensurate with the level of excess heat reported. No excess heat, no helium above background. Excess heat, elevated helium. Even if the elevations are not far above background, this is where statistical analysis can show clear correlation and thus causal association as a reasonable presumption. I've seen data which is far more clear than the summary given above, I should look at what they were looking at. I should also check on the helium reports from the SPAWAR group, because the technique they use is very reliable for producing excess heat; much of the earlier work was plagued with difficulty at getting any result at all. But, suppose that you run 160 cells. Only 16 of them produce excess heat. Looks lousy, right? Maybe it's just bad calorimetry in those cases. (But that is actually very unlikely with some of the research groups). Okay, then in five of the sixteen you find helium. No helium in any of the cells with no heat. Is this a significant finding? Damn straight it would be! That would be a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the excess heat is a precondition for the helium finding. Further, suppose that we look at the 11 cells where no helium was found after they had excess heat, and we see that the excess heat from those cells was lower than from the ones where helium was found. This would be proof on top of proof, that the excess heat and produced helium are effectively measuring the same process or cause. (I just made up the number 160, to show that the total number of negative experiments was crucial in understanding the reported results.)

• The reported conclusion is quite unsatisfactory; it will be necessary to look at the individual reports and compare them to the raw data.

• So why did the 2004 DOE report say that it was basically the same conclusion as in 1989. Because it was! What was the conclusion? What was seriously wrong with the article for a time was that the conclusion was read and interpreted as a dismissal of cold fusion as being junk science. That wasn't true in 1989 and it wasn't true in 2004. The conclusion wasn't that cold fusion was happening or not happening, it was a conclusion that the evidence was not yet conclusive and that further research should continue, but not a major federal program. Which, by the way, is still quite a reasonable conclusion (though it might not be the best conclusion). Why? Because the goal of the DOE report was to determine this question of "major federal funding," not whether or not cold fusion was junk science. It is crystal clear that this wasn't their opinion as a panel, and the level of confidence that cold fusion was "possible" wasn't what their overall conclusion was based on. And, in fact, there is something we don't know. Who wrote this the following overall conclusion?

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

• It's anonymous, apparently. What was similar, though? Both reports recommended further research. Both reports did not recommend a federal program, beyond normal research funding process. The 2004 report was pretty specific about what research was recommended. This was charge 3:

Charge Element 3: Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued.

• Please notice the summary response:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.

• They were not asked if one should be recommended, so that's a comment representing the goals of the author of the overall review. I can say that I probably know more about the cold fusion research, at this point, than the author of the overall review, whoever it was, and I'm not at all sure I'd recommend a "focused federally funded program" at this point, but I'd definitely recommend certain targeted points of research. Enric, the panel was unanimous on that!

• Enric, is this even remotely consistent with claims that cold fusion is "pseudoscience" or "junk science" or even "fringe science." It's "fringe" because of the opinions of large number of scientists that it's fringe, but that phenomenon doesn't reproduce itself in a neutral panel. Is there some membership card that says "Scientist," and those with the card can vote on a topic, and the topic is "science" if, what, how many, vote that it is? Or it's "fringe" if more than what percentage vote for it to be such? No, we consider the opinions of experts, those with knowledge in the specific field, issued after consideration of the evidence. And this returns me to the question here, what is the relevant field? The panel consisted of experts in nuclear physics, electrochemistry (even though some CF research doesn't involve electrochemistry any more), and materials science. That's actually a pretty decent mix. I wonder if the one-third that considered the evidence for fusion strong were the electrochemists! Back to Enric. --Abd (talk)

See also Biberian 2007, which was an update on the state of the field:

"Seventeen years after the announcement by Professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the discovery of cold fusion in March 1989, the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." (that's in 2007, so 3 years after DOE 2004

• Preaching to the choir, Enric. Note what this implies: that the "scientific community" rejects the conclusions of the 2004 DOE report. The "scientific community" rejects the peer-reviewed research, and, largely, denies that it even exists. ("Nobody was able to confirm Fleischmann's results") Are you aware of the implications of this?

• Sure, we should report this, but not as "science," but rather as "about scientists and the scientific community," and, in fact, we have plenty of reliable source analyzing the dysfunctional response to the CF announcement and what followed. (And the dysfunction has been on both sides of this debate, I'm dealing with it a bit from the other side. As an example, Hoffman's book on LENR is excellent, but some pro-CF activists have condemned him, for reasons that somewhat escape me. He is a true skeptic, one who is just as skeptical of premature rejection as he is of premature claims of proof. And he is very aware, and very clear, about the hazards on both sides.

And "Driving forces in physical, biological and socio-economic phenomena" from "cambridge University Press [25]

"On December 2, 2004 the US Department of Energy published a report which says that evidence on cold fusion remains inconclusive."

"Responsible Conduct of Research" from Oxford UP, one of the authors being Shamoo (the guy from Undead Science), is from 2009 and [26], it doesn't even mention the DOE 2004 review, it just states that it's still in the same situation as in 1989.

• Largely, yes. Enric, you are beating a dead horse. The 2004 DOE report says that "evidence remains inconclusive." It also says that its conclusions were similar to 1989. Sure. What does "inconclusive" mean? It means that reasonable doubt remains for the majority of reviewers; one-third of them said that they were "somewhat convinced," with one of those simply being "convinced." Enric, most of what you are saying is obvious, yet you are presenting it as if it were somehow escaping me. What I conclude is that you don't have the foggiest notion what I'm saying. --Abd (talk)

And OMCV also told you his first-hand experience with cold fusion being fringe.

• Sure. But what is "fringe" and how does it affect Wikipedia coverage of a topic? See WP:FRINGE. It's actually not well-defined. But I know of no other claimed "fringe science" with as much evidence for acceptance as LENR research. Are you aware of any fringe science where a governmental panel of experts unanimously recommends further research? OMCV claims that he'd ruin his career if it were known that he is even talking about cold fusion, even though he's a skeptic. Enric, this tells us practically nothing about the science, but a great deal about society. (end of interspersed comment, back to Enric for the last paragraph)

Given all this (and I'm sure that a few more RS can be produced), and given that you all your analysis relies on your reading of the reviews, I think it's clear that you simply engaged in OR in that third comment that I collapsed. Please don't uncollapse it and start paying more attention to what the sources say. This is getting tiring. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll reverse my policy, Enric. OR is permitted on Talk pages if relevant to the process of working on the article. OR can suggest searches for RS covering the topic. I'd say this: start paying attention to what I'm saying, or don't read it. Don't try to stop others from reading it, but efforts to organize what I've written into what should be on top level and what should be collapsed are just fine. If the goal is comprehension for the reader and not suppression of discussion.

As to Pcarbonn and Jed, well, Pcarbonn was a good editor. I've read the ArbComm decision, he got a very raw deal, and eventually I'll do something about it, but it will depend mostly on Pcarbonn. If he wanted to come back, I'd assist, but my conclusion was that it didn't matter that much. That he was banned is our loss, and I don't know that it would be the best use of his time or mine or all the other editors who would get involved on both sides to try to reverse the ArbComm decision. And, Enric, please understand that I expect that if I took that task on, I'd succeed. Rothwell is an expert on the topic who tends to think that people who don't understand him (or who don't meet his expectations) are idiots. That's an occupational hazard for some experts. The points he has been making about cold fusion are generally right on, based on what I've found reviewing the literature, his points about Wikpedia and Wikipedia editors are somewhere between impolitic and ignorant. He knows the literature intimately; he actually edited a good deal of it! Dismissing someone because the person is a writer is ... stupid. And double dismissing him because his degree is in Japanese is, again, nearsighted, given that some of the most intense research published in peer-reviewed journals has been published in Japanese. Writers often become experts on the topic they cover; have you noticed that Krivit, that "fringe POV-pusher," as some have tried to have it, was invited to be on the panel at the ACS press conference? Why would these people pick some nutty loony-tune? Actually, I've talked to him and have looked over a fair amount of his work. He's a reporter, a serious one, a professional. But you know about the media, how biased they are. (Where someone is a true reporter, not just a hack collator of press releases and free information or shallow interviews, they often develop personal opinions about the topics they cover, becoming informed has a habit of doing that to us.) --Abd (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Here I have two evaluations of the effect of the DOE 2004 review. One is your asessment here at wikipedia, and the other is the assesment of the principal deputy director of science of the DOE, as quoted by Scientific American. You will understand that I choose the second assessment as this guy was in a much better position to assess DOE's activities (including the hellium think, and the vote proportions). Also, for the purpose of writing the article, WP:NOR requires me to choose it, as being a published source knowledgeable in the field. Idem for Biberian, Shamoo, etc.

I am obviously not getting the point that you are trying to make. It appears to have something to do with ignoring what RS say in favor of what you think that they should say. From your comments above, you are planning to engage into full-fledged OR "The reported conclusion is quite unsatisfactory; it will be necessary to look at the individual reports and compare them to the raw data" which you will probably go and report in Talk:Cold fusion, WP:TALK be damned, and you make statements like "I can say that I probably know more about the cold fusion research, at this point, than the author of the overall review". That is... well... I think that you are deluding yourself on this matter. I'll just go and keep working in the article, and see if Phil153 makes that RfC he was talking about. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have something to do with ignoring what RS say in favor of what you think that they should say. No. My point. You are not getting it. However, maybe I'm not being clear, but if I try to be more clear, it takes more words unless I spend much more time, and I already spend too much. What I'm saying is that RS is RS, and peer-reviewed is peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed sources take precedence over ordinary media. This is the problem: we have lots of media sources for CF being pseudoscience, or for "most scientists" considering it such. But we have little peer-reviewed sources that say that CF is pseudoscience. We have a blatant example that it isn't pseudoscience, a reliable source, the DOE review from 2004. We have the ACS scheduling a four day seminar on low energy nuclear reactions this year, with major media notice. I'd say that it is preposterous that they would giver this much attention to pseudoscience, just as it is preposterous to look at the SPAWAR work, with, what, thirty peer-reviewed papers done over the last twenty years, as pseudoscience. But at the same time, we have major media repeating old "facts" about cold fusion that are blatantly contradictory to what is in peer-reviewed journals. What has been happening for a long time is that peer-reviewed RS material has been excluded from the article with the argument that it's fringe, not broadly accepted, and would therefore be undue weight, but we don't actually have reliable source for that claim sufficient to impeach the peer-reviewed material. We also have reliable source for the fact that the field was warped by the events of 1989, by very sloppy work supposedly proving that cold fusion was not real, work that is still supposed to represent the "mainstream," when, in fact, there isn't any supposed mainstream publication taking place (i.e., the supposedly critical mainstream), or very little. What's been quoted as "criticism" has often been quite the opposite, simply misinterpreted by major media or by us. (Krivit wasn't criticizing the SPAWAR findings, Kowalski, while he proposed an alternate explanation than radiation, did not maintain that hypothesis in the face of the SPAWAR response, and seems to have fully accepted that the CR-39 effects are due to radiation.)

As to OR, no, I'm not intending to engage in "full-fledged OR." I'm discussing what I find in the sources, and this includes some level of OR as appropriate for such discussion, but do not mistake "Talk page OR" with what I would put in the article. The kind of OR that I do leads to searches for what may exist in reliable source, and helps organize the information. It's like using blogs. I don't neglect blogs when doing research for an article, even though I may not be able to use them as sources, because they will sometimes point to a source that doesn't show up in searches. Working with an article on a Canadian national socialist, I found references to newspaper articles that weren't googleable because they were behind subscription walls; I was then able to extract enough from those articles through targeted searches to source the article and save it from deletion.

As to my comment about my knowledge, you don't cite the exact place I said this, do you imagine that I remember what I write? Sometimes, yes, but I'm 64 years old, the brain works differently than it did when I was young. I think I knew what I was talking about there, but perhaps I was wrong. Consider the "principal deputy director of science of the DOE," and what he would know about cold fusion. My strong suspicion is that someone in that position would have spent perhaps a tenth of the time or less researching the particular field as I have, even though I've only been working on this for less than three months. (Yes, I knew about CF and did substantial research back in 1989, but, in fact, very little was known then.) If you think that something other than this is likely, you probably have a very naive view of what a bureaucrat like that would know. He may be an excellent scientist in some field, but once you realize that the DOE has long been dead-set against cold fusion, that in spite of the recommendations of the 1989 review, when Storms approached them with research proposals that were exactly what they had asked for, the door was slammed in his face, as it was with all such proposals, I think it isn't difficult to realize that the DOE would not be likely to put a cold fusion specialist into the position you suggest, and that the person there would probably be knowledgeable in other areas, not this one. The DOE spent one day in the actual review, which is really preposterous, given the complexity of the issues. Sure, there was time spent by individual experts preparing for that meeting, but to find consensus in a group like that takes time. They did not try to find consensus, they simply measured agreement on points, very primitive process, and with that, they were very substantially divided. With detailed discussion, they might have found far more agreement. Rejection of cold fusion by scientists takes place when there isn't adequate discussion, based on what I've seen of old reviews. It would be expected with any new field that challenges old paradigms. In short, Enric, I think I probably have a great deal more experience with the real world in these matters than you. Here, we are peers; if my knowledge is greater, it would still give me no right over you, it's still my job to seek consensus with you, but it is also your job to try to understand with something deeper than AGF, with an assumption that maybe I know what I'm talking about. Don't worry. I take responsibility for this, precisely because (I imagine) I'm older.

You have no obligation to read what I write, nobody does, unless I put it into the article. By all means, do what you said you would do. Keep working on the article. But if you want to know where we might head, yes, you can read what I write, it may give you a clue. There is lots of stuff that I know that I can't put in the article because it depends on OR of some kind or another. For example, I can look at lots of primary sources, including conference papers. It means something to me if an effect is confirmed in a conference paper even if it is never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that will remain true as long as publication in this field remains very difficult. And I'll note that Storms cites lots of conference papers. He is the reviewer, and his publisher, by citing them! --Abd (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(One thing, you talk about showing that it's not "pseudoscience", but what the RS support is "fringe science, disacredited field, and getting compared to pathological science").

I'll just say that WP:RS does not require sources to be peer-reviewed, that many of those sources are primary sources that are given very little importance at reliable secondary sources (or no importance at all, or even listing them into the evidence for pathological science!), that many of those peer-reviewed sources were found in the talk page to be of doubtful quality or to come from low quality journals, and that all of that justifies plentily why they are not in the article.

As an apart, your comments are way too long and fill the page, dwarfing the posts of other editors, forcing other people to wade though them in order to follow the discussions. It's unhelpful, it discourages people from participating, never mind what you say about people having the choice not to read it, and you keep resisting attempts to collapse your comment. (the page is now at 668 KB, I'm tempted to go and count how many KB correspond to your posts) And you indulge into excessive talk page OR. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(One thing, you talk about showing that it's not "pseudoscience", but what the RS support is "fringe science, disacredited field, and getting compared to pathological science"). Enric, do you imagine that the first half of your claimed opposition conflicts with the second half? Why? It's not pseudoscience, as can be sufficiently shown to satisfy a Wikipedia consensus, in my opinion. Want to find out? DR is thataway. But DR starts in article talk, then user talk, then there are higher levels, involving more editors. Cold fusion is a discredited field. We have RS for that. Cold fusion has been compared to N rays and polywater. That's undeniably true, even if that isn't in peer-reviewed source beyond maybe an editorial. But we also have from reliable source that Cold fusion isn't pseudoscience. They are both true. I ask you on CF Talk today what your opinion is. Does it make any sense at all, from the 2004 DOE report and the context, including the unanimous and clear recommendation of the reviewers, that Cold fusion is pseudoscience? Read Hoffman's Dialogue. That was a neutral source, widely reported as being critical of cold fusion. I won't repeat what I've been told about Hoffman by at least one prominent CF advocate. Hoffman is very, very clear that this isn't pseudoscience, that there are workers in the field doing serious scientific work in it, and publishing. Just not in Nature!

I'll just say that WP:RS does not require sources to be peer-reviewed,

Once again, you have this habit of presenting the obvious to me as if you think it would surprise me or that it contradicts what I've said. What I've actually said is that we can and should use whatever is in RS, if it satisfies RS, it's notable. I understand that if you've been doing nothing but trying to maintain the article against POV-pushing, this may have escaped you, it often does. It is not our job to resolve conflicts between reliable sources, properly, we leave that up to the reader.

that many of those sources are primary sources that are given very little importance at reliable secondary sources (or no importance at all, or even listing them into the evidence for pathological science!) ... Listed where, Enric? Consider this: Whatever is listed and used in Storms (2007) has become usable primary source made notable by reference in a secondary source, the Storms publication. That is one huge pile of research, much of it accessible on-line. See, scientists writing reviews don't confine themselves to peer-reviewed studies. They can and do reference conference papers, self-published material from scientists or even non-scientists whom they consider notable, and even private communications. They are not Wikipedia, and RS, in general, need not follow our standards in what they write, just as we don't expect newspapers, RS for us, to footnote and cite everything they write in order for us to be able to use it.

However, if something in one reliable source contradicts other reliable source, or has not been confirmed by other reliable source, we attribute it, we don't exclude it based on our own OR and conclusion that one of these sources is defective. Enric, if this goes up to ArbComm, what I've been telling you will be sustained, my opinion. It seems to me that you are mostly rejecting it because you don't understand it, not because you actually disagree.

that many of those peer-reviewed sources were found in the talk page to be of doubtful quality or to come from low quality journals, and that all of that justifies plentily why they are not in the article. Okay, please point me to the RfC concluding that. You have mistaken the status quo, in an environment where true consensus was not pursued, but merely represented which side wore out the other, or managed to get the other banned, for a "conclusion." I don't edit war, Enric, you know and have seen that, and I don't edit war even when I'm certain I'm "right." You saw what happened with the whitelisted source in Martin Fleischmann. I pushed the edge of edit-warring there beyond my own normal limits, because I was so certain what the consensus would be if we went through real consensus process. Well, because of a certain tendentious editor, I needed to go through that process. Note, also, that it only took low-level steps in WP:DR. But it took a lot of discussion. That is frequently what consensus takes. That's why many organizations abandon consensus process in favor of voting. It seems more efficient. That can be short-sighted, but that's another story.

Waste your time counting the KB, Enric, if you want. What is the guideline that you are going to compare it to? Again, it would be a lovely topic for an RfAr. Before that, I imagine an AN report: "Editor writes 50 KB in one day." Of course, that just might get reframed to "Editor works hard to improve project, examines article issues in detail."

Collapse boxes are appropriate, sometimes, and I've not only consented to the collapse of some of my discussion, I've collapsed some of it myself. Other times it was not appropriate. Enric, don't take one side of a discussion and collapse all of it, except maybe to propose the collapse, it's an efficient way to make the proposal. If I don't accept the collapse, or, better, refactor my comment, collapsing part, let it go. You are totally free to collapse anything I write, but if you do it in a way that distorts what I've been saying -- and you did --, don't be surprised if I undo it. --Abd (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jost one note: there is already consensus for not putting the "pseudoscience" category in the article, it was decided to put it in the "fringe science" category instead, see the RfC from July 2008 Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_17#Should the article be placed in the category of "pseudoscience" --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew about the conclusion, but thanks for the link. As you may know, I only started following the article in January, as a result of discovering the blacklisting (which, by the way, opened up a huge can of worms. It turns out that, contrary to blacklisting guidelines, the blacklist is frequently being use to control content even when there is no linkspamming, and I discovered one major web site that is blacklisted because an editor started adding perhaps a dozenappropriate links. The antispam volunteers consider any addition of multiple links to a web site (exact level undefined) to be linkspam, shoot first and ask questions later, and if you ask questions, the strong presumption is against delisting, and, as you have seen, you have to stand on your head to get a whitelisting. But the second will be easier, and get a few, there is then some argument for delisting the whole site, or, in the case of lenr-canr.org, whitelisting the whole site (because the current blacklisting is at meta, not here); and when the whole site is whitelisted, it becomes more politically practical to request delisting at meta. We'll get there.

Now, if Cold fusion is pseudoscience, and you just came up with a pile of sources to show that, why not include it in the category? Don't worry, I'll answer! Because those are opinions, not the product of peer-reviewed and neutral research. What I've pointed to is (1) the DOE review in 2004, which is utterly inconsistent with the pseudoscience conclusion, even though it doesn't say, for sure, "the study of low-energy nuclear reactions is pseudoscience," (2) reliable source that neutrally examines how the "pseudoscience" judgment came to become common, and (3) reliable source that clearly rejects the label. So the category is controversial, the application of the label is POV, and categories should not be used to assert some POV. Now a category of "Research field alleged to be pseudoscience," that would be appropriate. It's verifiable.

But what about the "fringe science category." It's easy to understand a prior consensus on that, but, to me, the question is open. There is no crisp definition. However, see Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability_versus_acceptance. Most of the discussion in WP:FRINGE assumes that it is difficult to find reliable source for the topic. There is then, beyond that, concern about WP:UNDUE. The issue I've been raising is how we determine due weight when the weight of publication in reliable source is toward theories that are considered fringe by many. It is essential that we approach this neutrally. From the guideline (emphasis added):

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.

Now, Enric, how closely do I need to parse this for you? To provide some hints, I have bolded some of the text above.

If I choose to challenge the Fringe science category, I will delve into the details. For now, that is way on the back burner; but what has been done is to exclude reliable source on the basis that the research was "fringe," or that the journals were not of the stature of Nature. That position neglected that Nature withdrew from the field almost twenty years ago, so the "Nature position" is very old. Essentially, on this topic, today, what was in Nature is only of historical relevance. When we look at the research and publication that ensued, the questions raised by the negative results published in Nature have been answered. There remain many mysteries, but certain issues have resolved, among those working in the field, and, while they remain controversial among a more general panel like that involved with the DOE in 2004, with no clear consensus being found, the indications are more that this is what WP:FRINGE calls "emerging science." The LENR community is no small community. It runs conferences, it has its own peer-reviewed journal, but it also publishes in independent peer-reviewed journals. In spite of being underfunded, in spite of the weight of massive rejection based on institutional inertia (which is part of a story about the institutions, not about the science!), work is continuing, with very significant progress in the last few years. If you have made yourself truly familiar with this field, especially with the negative literature in 1989-1990, you will be aware of the significance of 100% replication (He, 2007 review), helium correlated with heat and at the appropriate levels to be the primary nuclear ash (many publications), and neutrons (Mosier-Boss, 2008). The only one of these three that hasn't been widely confirmed in specifics is the least important, but the most notable! That's the neutrons, of course. Quite simply, it is now well-known that the primary ash is helium, that the primary radiation produced is alpha particles, which is simply energetic helium, and that neutrons are a product of some rare side-reaction. But still devastating to the theory that low-energy fusion, aside from muon catalysis, is impossible!

Against the position outlined above, there is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science, which concluded: 1) In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science.

See also from this case:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence. Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Advocacy. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

So, Enric, what is the "current knowledge" with respect to Cold fusion? --Abd (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The unnecessary length of your posts is becoming a "huge" (joke) problem (serious). You are defeating the object of communication, and your long posts are not of a benefit to the project as they are making it more difficult to understand what is going on and discuss anything on the talk page. They are becoming disruptive, though I hope that isn't your intention. Please write shorter, more concise posts. Verbal chat 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The length of my posts is necessary. It's a well-known problem for writers, Mark Twain referred to it in a letter. "I'd write you a briefer letter, but I don't have time." I have a standard suggestion: If you think some is tl;dr. There is no obligation, no necessity to the project, to read long talk page posts. If I'm dropping a warning on your talk page, it's my obligation to be succinct or else the warning may later be considered ineffective. If I'm justifying a revert, and you ignore it because it's too long, and the reason wasn't otherwise apparent, you'd have a defense against edit warring. There is some usage of collapse boxes, which can make the conversation more accessible, overall, but it is, again, work to appropriately collapse without distorting. So, if you want to help, fix the problem. It takes work. Are you volunteering?

As to the object of communication, there are two types of communication: polemic and discussion. Discussion does not have a fixed goal, beyond some general mutually desirable goal. Polemic aims to convince, based on some pre-existing conclusion. My long discussions are just that, discussion. If you want polemic, ask for it, but don't complain if you are then excluded from being part of a consensus formed. Discussion is voluntary. Watch out for polemic, it can poison consensus, and do not confuse the two. You are not the first to do so. Skilful polemic is brief, putting strong pressure on a point or narrow line, like a knife. I know how to do it. It takes far longer, unless and until one becomes, perhaps, very skillful at making a certain cut.

One more point. I have ADHD, it's a very clear diagnosis, not marginal, indeed, I could be a poster boy for it. To require me to be succinct when discussing would be, effectively, to require me not to discuss. I could do that. But I'd much rather seek consensus, and that interests me much more than any possible POV I could push, which is just about what I'd be limited to if I don't discuss.--Abd (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the length of your posts is not necessary. Your literary allusions, metaphors, similes, and other rhetorical devices do not aid understanding or add to your posts. Your posts are closer to polemic than to discussion, and are becoming disruptive. Work on them offline and redraft them if it will help, as you are not communicating effectively. For example, your digression about polemic and discussion could have been condensed easily into one concise sentence without any information loss. Another example is that there is no reason to bring up Mark Twain. Telling people to not read your posts is not helpful. I will be asking for more input on this if you continue to write essays and polemic on the Cold Fusion talk page, and to treat it as a forum for discussion and original research. Verbal chat 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, Verbal, thanks for sharing. I don't tell people to not read my posts, but I write for those who are motivated to read. There are, what, six million registered editors. Not one of them is obligated to read what I write. If any one of them thinks that it doesn't belong on the Talk page, they are free to remove it without even reading it. I or other editors will then respond. It takes no longer to remove a long post than to remove a short one. It takes very little longer to scan a long post looking for the end and a response from another. I'm working heavily on Cold fusion at this point, and the vast majority of that work is off-line, researching, I've accumulated a small library, and am beginning to come to conclusions about where I think the article should go. Until then, I'm discussing what comes up. Yes, it's more than some editors are used to, but "some editors" are not used to editors who work hard on a topic. I'm not excluding them, they lose nothing from those talk page posts. I could take your post here as a warning, but I'm not at all clear what I'm being warned about. Is there a guideline on length? Show me so I can comply. However, above, you rudely dismiss and reject my comments. This is my Talk page, I can mention Mark Twain here if I want to. I will say this: your intervention here is not helpful. I've suggested how you could be helpful, but that would require that you become familiar with the issues at the article. It's impossible to judge if my discussion is necessary oar not unless you understand the issues; you have a personal standard of what is "too long," based on your own personal needs.

Verbal, I have over twenty years of experience with on-line discussion, starting with the W.E.L.L. in Sausalito in the mid-1980s. I've encountered the tl;dr objection many times. There is nothing wrong with tl;dr. What is offensive, though is tl;dr SO SHUT UP!

I just wrote something on Wikipedia Review, and quite a number of editors came back with tl;dr as if they were being smart and saying something that wasn't obvious. But I wasn't writing for them. Another wikipedia editor emailed me and thanked me for what I'd written. See, Verbal, I was writing for him, on the issues raised by the topic there, and for anyone else who cared to read. Not for the close-minded, knee-jerk, opinionated without knowledge, many who too often dominate conversations with their pithy witticisms that do nothing to resolve conflict. Want to help, Verbal? Wake up and start. Otherwise, please go away.

Until you provide a guideline being violated, your warning here is ineffective.

But to pick up on one possibly useful fragment from what you wrote, your digression about polemic and discussion could have been condensed easily into one concise sentence without any information loss. Perhaps you are better than that than I am. Could you show me? I'll note that this is classic editor-writer dispute, it could be an editor complaining that the writer doesn't do the editor's job. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Something was said above that I should respond to. (I bet that jed, and maybe Pcarbonn and other cold fusion proponents, are telling you off-wiki that your comments are very appropiate and that you keep going, but you should be taking their input with a sack of salt, after all the talk page comments of Jed and Pcarbonn paid an important role in getting them banned so they haven't exactly shown that they know what you can put on a wikipedia talk page and what you can't! I am not a wiki guru, but at least I manage to not get myself banned)

That's correct. However, I once wrote that, if you are never blocked, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project. I wrote that before I was ever blocked, and I got, from it, positive comment from Wikipedians far more experienced than I. That's obviously not to be taken literally, because some people do get lucky and do serious work without getting blocked; but more often, just as children learning to walk usually stumble and fall, learning to deal with serious conflict on Wikipedia without taking flak takes practice. (Actually, the flak is inevitable, it comes with the territory, but, with a skilled editor, flak usually does not result in loss of ability to fly.) There is one exception, and it's pathological. I.e., if you "work" on supporting a majority POV, you may get away with incivility and other offenses that would get any advocate of a minority POV, and sometimes any advocate of consensus NPOV, blocked quickly.

(1) Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn has said practically nothing to me, you can see almost all (all?) of our communication on his Talk page. He has no influence on my work. I regret his loss, and I consider that an error was made, but it would be disruptive at this time to pursue that. Several issues on which I'm working would prepare the way to address this nondisruptively. I will note that the major editor who battled with Pcarbonn was also, more recently, banned, and his behavior had long been totally outrageous, but was supported by a significant faction, and an ally of his succeeded in framing Pcarbonn's work as motivated by an outside agenda, which actually should have been practically irrelevant, if Pcarbonn's actual behavior satisfied guidelines. In the end, Pcarbonn's ban hinged on the fact that he wrote a quite good article for New Energy Times about his Wikipedia experience, framed as an admission of considering Wikipedia to be a battlefield. It's a battlefield, we should get over it. The problem isn't that -- which is simply a fact, Wikipedia is a place where factions battle -- the problem is behavior that violates civility and other policies, including edit warring. Editors who comply with policy, so-called "civil POV-pushers," we actually need more of, not less of.

(2) "Jed." I.e., Jed Rothwell. Jed is a notable expert on the topic, he should actually have an article, I've got plenty of source for it. But I'm not starting it right now, too much else to do. We occasionally correspond. I informed him of the He Jing-tang paper, which he was unaware of. His general comment is that Wikipedia is a waste of time. You have to understand that some editors here have an inflated view of the importance of Wikipedia to someone like him. He doesn't need us. But he knows the field intimately, and he voluntarily withdrew from editing articles in 2006, thus satisfying COI guidelines, confining himself to Talk. We should have encouraged this, not blocked him for alleged offenses. In reality, the only offense was incivility, and this is common among experts dealing with people who know much less than them about a topic, and particularly when these relatively ignorant people are themselves uncivil. It's possible to deal with a problem like this without banning the editor, usually, but what would have been needed to be done was not done. Rothwell was blocked improperly, which is not to say that proper process would have resulted in a different conclusion, except that proper process would have allowed alternate response from him. Instead, he was given no incentive whatever to comply with civility guidelines, he gained nothing by complying, and lost nothing from sanctions. He didn't need Wikipedia links for pagerank. His site is highly notable, referenced all over and in RS.

(3) Jed Rothwell has provided me with a list of peer-reviewed publications supporting excess heat. We probably should have this on the project, I'll put it up if I can. This is obviously verifiable. There are other, earlier lists in RS, so, really, what his list would contribute is text (not necessary to retype) and possibly a few new or otherwise missing listings.

(3) (other proponents). I've corresponded with one other proponent, whose conclusion for some time matched that of Jed Rothwell (waste of time). Much of the correspondence was cc'd between him, myself, and another highly respected editor. None of it was about article content or my Talk page posts; rather, it was about certain overall process issues that affected that editor.

(4) It seems that the vision you have of a Wikipedia editor is very, very different from what a classic encyclopedia editor would do. A classic editor would actively communicate with experts, would not just sit back and look in the books and magazines. It's impossible for a non-expert to soundly review and produce a balanced report without active consultation, because it is far too easy for a non-expert to judge the importance of assertions in publications. Overall balance where there is conflict is satisfied by communication with experts on all sides. So there is supposed to be some problem if I discuss the topic with a notable expert? I'm quite aware of Rothwell's limitations -- and I'm frank with him about them. I won't reveal what he writes, but some of it I don't take with salt, I don't take it at all. He's a human being, besides being an expert. We all are the former, for sure.

One more point. Our coverage of Cold fusion is quite deficient compared to what it could be if we actually seek consensus instead of battling to maintain some POV ("fringe" or "anti-fringe"). I'm doing what ArbComm's suggestions on this require. You are actively invited to be a part of that. Your choice. I do suggest that you try to imagine that I know what I'm doing. It's not like I have no experience! --Abd (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And another. Enric, you wrote: You say that you won't edit war and that you will let others editors judge on your comments, but you reverted two of my three collapsings.... [20][21] Apparently you will only accept "'friendly' and selective collapse"[22].... You also say "(...)Don't try to stop others from reading it, but efforts to organize what I've written into what should be on top level and what should be collapsed are just fine(...)"[23] Putting all together actions and words, it looks like you are decided to have the last word on what gets collapsed in your comments and why, never mind what you state about letting other people decide.

I only accept collapse that does not damage the conversation. "Accept" refers to initial action, not to "Over my dead body." I am far more disposed to accept "friendly collapse," but collapse from editors arguing tenaciously against what I'm saying isn't friendly usually friendly. Nevertheless, I'l accept it if it does no harm. A single revert isn't edit warring, it's a statement. (There are conditions where it is edit warring, but they don't apply here.) How do you get "last word" out of what I will immediately accept or not? You collapse my text. You might have noticed that much (Most?) of your collapses have been accepted, in whole or in part. But if I don't see it as helpful, I have the choice of saying, no, I prefer not, and it is silly to discuss something like this, at this point, and I do this with a single revert. If it goes beyond this, yes, discussion is crucial. You are discussing here, that's okay, indeed, a good thing. Better than edit warring! If you revert me, you are definitely making a repetitive edit, which is into edit warring, as would I if I reverted again. (It could be defined tighter, such that my first revert is the boundary, but I set it a bit higher on talk pages, since the presumption is that we leave other editor's talk alone, normally.) I take the initial collapse as a good faith attempt to improve things. But I should be able to say, no, I don't think so, without wasting a lot of time. Reverting at that point is efficient. "Letting other people decide" refers to the overall process. I write, you collapse. I accept or revert or, sometimes, refactor and rewrite the collapse header. Depends on how much time I have and how important the collapsed material is. If someone else thinks that, no, this is better collapsed, that other person can revert me, and I may accept it. I will not revert that collapse myself, but, depending on the circumstance, I might discuss it and might ask someone else to revert again, though usually I will conclude that it doesn't matter than much. After all, it is all still there. Collapse is a lot nicer than deletion!

Enric, I'm going to recommend something, I don't know if it will work with you, but sometimes it does. Please reread this entire discussion here and see if you are succeeding in assuming good faith and if you are attempting to find consensus, which would imply helpful criticism, not accusations. If you realize that your comments were not as appropriate as you might have thought, apologize. It's simple and it clears the way for further cooperation. We have already cooperated, but I don't think you are aware of my longer-term plans. There is nothing nefarious about them, but they are not what most editors might expect. You can ask what I'm doing any time. It's not secret. It's merely esoteric to some. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd/Cold fusion controversy

Per your request to my talkpage, I have userfied the page and its history to the above location. Do not distribute copies of this page's contents except in compliance with the GFDL, and if you wouldn't mind, can you just ping me when you want it moved back, or if you can't bring the page up to standard so that I can return the history to the right location. Give me a nudge if you need any other help. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask on your page about whether or not there was an attached Talk page with anything possibly of note. One reason I wanted to have this userfied was so that history would be attached, this is better than pulling the text off of the off-wiki location. I wanted the page basically for research, the material, in pieces, might be incorporated in a different article, probably with rewrite. But it is conceivable that it would go back into mainspace under some conditions. --Abd (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

wow, nice article, a bit POVish though :P Anyways, I have to thank you for the iniative since I found there a very interesting letter exchange with two editors-in-chief of Scientific American http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf.

One thing, you should clean up all those "ibid" from the text. They all just get mixed up when people starts shuffling text around and neglects to update them, and then someone has go look at the history edit by edit to untangle the mess and find when was that "ibid" initally introduced to see what it was making reference to, or look at all the sources to find the one that was being used (assuming that it wasn't deleted from the article at some point, which takes you back to combing through the article history). Seriously, the "ibid" were intended for static text in printed media, and not for wikis that anyone can edit. You get a fair percentage of people who don't know what "ibid" means, or that don't care about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But, hey, I just found out about this old article today. Much of it was written by Jed Rothwell, who is an expert on the topic, besides being cantankerous; he's used to editing technical papers (he does a lot of that in the field), but he wasn't a skilled wiki editor. (My opinion is that we should take special care with experts like him, they can be touchy; handling Rothwell as he was handled by some of us was pure poison in terms of taking advantage of his comprehensive knowledge of the field. "Fringe" is very much off the mark, even if the field is fringe. That is, he's COI and that's enough. COI editors are expected to have a POV, so getting upset because an editor who only edits Talk has a POV is really .... very much against how Wikipedia needs to treat experts in general. As to the article, I don't know if we should clean it up and get it back in mainspace (and face a likely AfD as a "POV fork," no matter how careful we are about neutrality, or even speedy deletion based on the old AfD) or start moving the details about the controversy into Cold fusion. As you know, I think that article can't bear what is available in reliable source. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC JZG3

Hi Abd, even early on you can see a clear feeling has emerged that you are beating the dead horse and a super majority of users commenting so far support my call for a topic ban on you. I would ask you even at this early stage to carefully consider whether you are prepared to a) respect the opinions of your fellow editors by withdrawing the RFC and B) agree to drop this crusade voluntarily. If not, please be aware that I will be raising the issue for community endorsement on an involuntarily basis if (as I expect) the weight of opinion remains where it is. Please think this through carefully. You are a passionate and committed editor. No-one wants to sanction you if you can just decide to stand back on your own, but please be aware that this crusade needs to end and it needs to end now for the good of the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Spartaz. There is no crusade, there is an RfC, entered and certified. You are seeing, in the RfC, an initial pile-on which is fully to be expected where the editor is involved. For reference this is now called Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3. (I named it JzG3 to start because the previous RfC was named JzG2, but, of course, there is no user JzG3, nor one named JzG2).

I request that you point out to me where I've been carrying on a crusade, I've been mostly silent about this for the last month. The evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute shows considerable opinion that there is a problem, so I am merely raising the problem formally, with evidence, so that the community may consider it. What's the "dead horse," please explain? There is a very, very simple solution to this: JzG acknowledges that he has violated policy with respect to use of tools while involved, and assures the community that he will not do it again. Because this is the goal that RfC states, it would make the RfC moot, in effect, and I'd support speedy close under those conditions.

However, without that recognition from Jzg (what's so hard about it?), I have every reason to expect that, once the community's attention is distracted, the behavior will resume. It is important that he acknowledge the violation, because, if he can't recognize it, he can't know when to refrain and when not to refrain. This was clearly established with Physchim62 and Tango, they were desysoppped not because they made mistakes, but because they appeared to be incapable of recognizing them.

Anyway, thanks for asking. If I take any specific actions which you consider disruptive, or beating a dead horse, please let me know, the presumption is that I will stop unless others comment, to the contrary, that my behavior is appropriate.

So, as to that, have you read the comment by Coppertwig in the RfC? What do you think about it? --Abd (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

One more point. I'm trying to understand your point. The RfC asks a specific question, and the "supermajority" you refer to have not addressed that question. If this comes to a close, should the closing admin consider the responses of those who did not address the question? What I'm seeing, among those who addressed the question, is consensus that JzG should not act as he acted. So what is the position of the "supermajority"? It's not clear to me, beyond a diffuse "JzG good, Abd bad." --Abd (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The "dead horse" is the notion that Abd's activities are "wasteful drama". This idea has already been considered and rejected here. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG, Abd was told by many users that RfC was the appropriate forum, though Abd hesitated: "I had not intended to escalate to RfC so soon, and had requested that JzG suggest a meditator" and "I cannot promise to file an RfC because, I still hope, it will become unnecessary".

I note that Spartaz' statement includes "while I agree generally with Fritpoll's advice to Guy on how to avoid future complaints of thus type", which is in essence in agreement with the basic overall message of the RfC. I'm under the impression that in ancient Greece, if an accused person was found innocent, the accuser would be punished; I would hope Wikipedia is more advanced than that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, man, but I have had a discussion at my talk page about my certification of the RfC, and it seems that I was mistaken: users who certify a certify a dispute are also endorsing the statement of the RfC. Now, your dispute with JzG is too much different than mine, my concerns are almost completely different, so I'm having to pull my certification. You'll have to ask someone else to certify the RfC, maybe Copperwig or GoRight, I don't know. Again, sorry for failing you :( --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Enric. Spartaz correctly reset the clock to start when he moved the RfC back to uncertified, I think this is exactly what I suggested on your Talk page. And it's all moot now, because Durova and Petri Krohn have now certified. They were the ones I'd identified as previously attempting, on JzG Talk, to address the issue of use of tools while involved. See, the blacklisting and edit warring at Martin Fleischmann and block of Jed Rothwell and all that were not the point. Those could all have been, in the end, correct in terms of outcome, but use of tools while involved is one area on Wikipedia where process policy is crucial. It's a bit like edit warring: it doesn't matter if you are right, violate 3RR and you can be blocked. I know what to do when faced with a tenacious IP editor reverting junk back in. I don't do more than a couple of reverts, if that, I go to RfPP and it's fixed in minutes. I've seen editors blocked for enforcing policy, many times. You don't enforce policy by violating another policy.

Now, as to your support of my ban, in the RfC, well, it's harder to take that in a friendly way. I've found your edits at Talk:Cold fusion lately to be problematic, you have been asserting things based on sources where the sources don't substantiate your claims. That's actually dangerous, and it has gotten editors banned. I'd suggest not doing it. This is my Talk page, not yours, so you can take this or leave it without hazard. It's a friendly comment, at least to some degree!

By the way, precedent I've seen in prior RfCs is that sanctions for one user are not determined through an RfC on another. There is good reason for that, though it can be frustrating sometimes. Actually, in theory, RfCs don't determine sanctions, but that one seems to be ignored. JzG's RfC cannot involuntarily desysop him, but it can pave the way to an ArbComm case which could.

Do consider one thing: look at the comments supporting the RfC, which actually address the issue raised, which is not "Is JzG Good or is Abd bad." It's deliberately a question so simple that some editors refuse to consider it, maybe because they don't like the obvious implications: "Was JzG involved with Cold fusion? Did he then use admin tools with respect to it or editors involved with it? Is this against policy?" There is no comment which explicitly answers these questions in the negative, though there are plenty of comments which ignore the question, but pile in to support JzG or to attack me, which is irrelevant. Those people are making it more likely that JzG will lose his admin bit. --Abd (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you got your RfC certified by Durova, not bad for being your first RfC :D

No, I don't think that I'm going to get banned for my interpretation of sources in Talk:Cold fusion.

I don't see how those comments could have an effect on JzG finally getting desysopped or not... The evidence and comments presented at an eventual Arbcom case should carry way much more weigth on deciding that. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• JzG cannot be desysopped by any process short of ArbComm action, unless he voluntarily resigns, or there is emergency action from "above," which is very rare. Not sure what you mean by "those comments." The RfC lays out (1) evidence of involvement, (2) evidence that tools were use when involved, (3) evidence that Jzg was warned without response. The RfC itself is generally a prerequisite for ArbComm acceptance of a case. The RfC was narrowly composed on one single, simple issue, and, as expected, many editors have tried, and they tried (and sometimes succeeded in the short-term) to make it into a content dispute, or disruption, or some kind of vendetta. In fact, when I began this process early in January, and approached JzG with regard to his out-of-process blacklistings, I had no negative history with him, and on the contrary, he had been helpful to me. I was surprised at his intransigent response, most admins would have said, "Oh, you're right, I probably shouldn't have done that myself. What do you suggest? I can take it to a noticeboard." Then I started finding other problems. But the RfC doesn't raise those issues. An ArbComm filing probably would.

• I was dealing, slowly, with disentangling the web of damage from JzG actions. Doing it quickly is disruptive. You saw one small piece of that, the situation with the link to lenr-canr.org. It's one step at a time, which allows focus, allows clearing the table of distractions. But I also uncovered problems with the blacklist. Again, I did not attack or directly confront the blacklist process, but have dealt with several examples, the most notable being lyrikline.org, which is still globally blacklisted but which is not effectively whitelisted here (and in de.wikipedia). My concern, in the end, is not JzG, at all, but community structure that allows abuse to go on a long time without effective community response, when the abuser is popular. JzG could defuse the immediate situation immediately by acknowledging that he violated administrative policy, and promising not to do it again, and I have no plans to pursue him over any of the other stuff I dug up; you can see much of it in the histories shown in the RfC, but, notice, that the histories (in the collapse boxes) are complete, they aren't cherry-picked. What was brought up to the top level is, of course, but just to show the depth of involvement.

• I have never attempted to get an editor banned over a content issue, and, in fact, I don't recall any attempt to get any editor banned over any issue at all, but sometimes I've raised issues that resulted in a ban. For example, sock puppetry. For what I've seen of your editing, Enric, for it to earn you a topic ban would take far more than what you have already done. I'm concerned about several incidents now where you made statements, providing sources that either didn't support the statement, or which provided raw, literal confirmation but which, overall, implied the contrary of your assertions. This kind of thing can evince an intention to prove a point from sources, rather than presenting or aiming for NPOV from sources.

• Above and in the RfC you can see what I was up against. It was expected. And do you think I'd have filed the RfC, or, previously, compiled the evidence in the deleted evidence file, if I didn't also expect that wider consensus would support what I've seen? If I didn't expect significant support from respected and experienced editors? JzG and Spartaz and some others would like to believe that I'm on some crusade to support Rothwell. No, I'm on a crusade to reform the way that Wikipedia treats experts. Rothwell was uncivil, he's blunt and caustic, both in what he wrote here and off-wiki. But lots of experts are like that, they imagine that knowing a field well gives them some edge over those who have only casually perused a few sources. If that!

• With someone like Rothwell, I would rigorously insist on compliance with COI and civility policies, but I would always want to know his opinion of article text or sources, provided he expresses them in a professional way. And I would defend him against incivility in the other direction. The incivility I saw directed at him was worse than what went in the other direction. If you support his ban, you should consider the implications. Or do you believe in some double standard?

• The two other editors who had tried specifically and recently to resolve the dispute with JzG over abuse of tools were listed by me in the RfC. I did not know for sure if they would certify, but .... I know Durova, and considered it likely, and Petri Krohn, as I recall, was one of the few editors who noticed and questioned some of JzG actions with respect to Cold fusion, which brought my attention to the matter in the first place. I knew nothing of the history at Cold fusion. He, and some others, were pretty cynical about the possibility of doing anything. But policy is clear here, it's not marginal, and rules about use of tools while involved are crucial, for the protection of all of us. Today it might be Rothwell, but tomorrow it might be you, if you tangle with an abusive administrator or one of his friends. (One of the more chilling comments in the RfAr JzG filed, after my comment there, was one in which an admin appeared to have offered to block on behalf on JzG, and, in fact, he went ahead and did that, without any justifying incident. I see stuff like this fairly frequently, most of it I'm unable to do anything about, because of the level of disruption that would be involved. In the end, it was, in that case, moot, because Rothwell doesn't want to be unblocked, he doesn't care.) --Abd (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your debate on User talk:Beetstra

Abd, you have been told by multiple people that you need to stop other people's time by your endless argumentative posts. Now, after all the warnings coming from the RfC, you have opened up yet another of those disputes at User talk:Beetstra. This is disruptive behaviour. I am now formally warning you: stop these excessive and time-wasting futile debates. If I see you continuing these, I will block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Beetstra has consented to further discussion. I'd said that we were done. If Beetstra permits it, I will continue discussion with him. If not, I'm done there. I'm not going to edit the page again without his explicit permission. Beetstra and I have long been discussing some of these issues, and those discussions have resulted in agreements that have been useful for the project. I was surprised and distressed by his comments about banning me. Since we have been able to discuss and resolve issues in the past (including ones where he expressed irritation at first) I assumed we could do that again. As you know, I wasn't officially warned by the comments at the RfC, but I am now, by you. Thanks for the warning, it makes things clear and easier in certain ways, and you have also made your personal view even more clear than they were before, and that, too, is useful. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to complicate things, but I consider Fut.Perf.'s warning to be without merit. There is an RfC in progress. Abd decided to discuss an issue arising from it, on Beetsta's talk page. Beetstra replied and discussion continued. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just like this discussion on my talk page, and like many, many discussions where users decide to discuss issues arising from article content discussions or from other discussions, on user talk pages. It's often good to do it that way, so that the discussion doesn't take up too much space in the venue used by more people. Whether Abd posts to Beetstra's talk page should be pretty much up to Beetstra to decide. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When warned by an admin who could block, I don't judge that it is "without merit" unless I have a critical interest that must be defended, immediately, for the welfare of the project. That's rare. It's up to Beetstra. He set this in motion by referring to the discussion in the RfC as if it were justification for a ban. I know Beetstra, he can be hot-headed for a short time. He generally cools down and does the right thing. Beetstra has been a great help in two ways: he's patiently worked with me to help me understand the blacklisting process, he whitelisted a lenr-canr.org link, lyrikline.org's English home page, and the University of Atlanta. The latter was problematic, though still correct, and, in fact, was the least important to me. Beetstra disagrees, still, on a number of important issues. But I've considered him a partner, which is why the "ban" stuff was shocking. There may be things going on that are not visible. I'm not exercised about it, I'm just dealing with it. It's been a good day, as far as I'm concerned. As soon as I think that this or that must happen, or this or that must not happen, I'd be dead meat. WP:Eventualism. Or, take two WP:DGAFs and call me in the morning. Thanks, Coppertwig, for all your support, it's deeply appreciated.

The rest of this is the rambling of a deranged editor on his own Talk page. Please see the warning at the top of this page and take it seriously. Do not read this unless you are prepared to digest it, otherwise parts of it may be destabilizing, you may not understand it and then project your own meanings onto it.

I should say that where Beetstra and I disagree still, it is on positions fairly common among those involved with the blacklist. My opinion is that those positions will not be sustained if examined by the larger community. But I have not pushed it, except in one very small way. When my request for the whitelisting of lyrikline.org sat for a long time with no action, but with no cogent argument against whitelisting it, I went to AN requesting administrative assistance (any admin could decide on the whitelisting). One of the blacklist regulars, however, declined it then, citing the bankrupt copyright argument. Beetstra, who had been requiring that wikiprojects be informed and that they make the decision, and I'd jumped through all those hoops with the normal response (none), finally just did it. He still claims that the global blacklisting was appropriate, but he's claiming, if I understand him correctly, secret evidence. I'll discuss that with him further, assuming that the present problem passes, and I know how to deal with that; my point here is that I'm doing nothing without exercising caution to prevent damage to the project, including disruption by raising an issue that might upset the blacklisting applecart. Certain administrators will still try to claim that I'm being disruptive, but that's what one expects when walking into the kitchen. Heat.

I can't say that I'm surprised about the initial response to the RfC, it is SOP for certain admins. But it is remarkably blatant, I didn't expect the degree of ... I don't know what to call it. Don't they know that this is all visible, and that, barring JzG turning around, and I waited months hoping for that, this will all be seen by ArbComm, who may take a dim view of what is, in fact, disruption of an RfC? The warning about Beetstra I'd describe as an act of desperation, there must be some reason to block this arrogant upstart. I don't know how deep the political currents run, but I think it likely that Beetstra will come around, he has in the past. Many of the other commenters calling for my ban are utterly unsurprising. But, Coppertwig, you know this: the RfC isn't about my behavior, and I could be Jerk Number One and get banned later today, and it wouldn't change the outcome of this. It's not about me, the RfC is about JzG, and sooner or later that will become clear.

JzG expresses amazement and wonder, and speculates that I must be autistic. You know what would happen if I said that about him! But, the fact is, I do have a developmental disorder, it's emblazoned on my user page, ADHD. ADHD is a mixed bag; there are many varieties, but my particular situation isn't marginal and it isn't atypical. Very, very smart, and very likely to violate Abd/Rule 0. Socrates. We ask questions that people don't like. Don't we know better than to ask questions like that? Actually, we don't! It's complicated. The sum of it is that if everyone was like me, it would be a disaster. But if nobody is like me in any society or community, the community becomes paralyzed, unable to change. Thom Hartmann and others think it's a genetic variation, and there is definitely a genetic component. In any case, I can see stuff that most people can't. And, for that gain, if it's a gain, there are losses, that's why it's a "disorder."

(See [[27]]) One of the things that happens commonly is that I hold multiple POVs on any subject. It is not unusual that people impute motives for what I'm writing that actually are absent, but they assume that someone who would write BC must have preceding motive A, and what they assume might be appropriate for a "normal person." I'm not normal. An example might be the evidence page that was the underlying basis for the RfC. It was simply a list of actions, and it wasn't cherry-picked, it was complete as to each page edited and the (extensive) period covered. Yet that was called an "attack page." Isn't that fascinating? In the other direction, when I was blocked, and I asked for the basis, I was told, Special:Contributions/Abd. That was probably a pretty honest answer.

JzG seems to be unable to comprehend that when I questioned his blacklisting on the basis that he was involved, maybe I was questioning his blacklisting on the basis that he was involved. Rather, it appears, he assumed that I was defending Rothwell or pushing some POV, and he knew me well enough to be quite puzzled by it, and I think the puzzlement was genuine. This, however, is not something that I could explain to him, under present conditions. It's like what happened when I explained to ScienceApologist how he could make those helpful little edits without violating his ban. I got flak for that as well, I was, supposedly, trolling. Actually, I was doing two things at the same time: being helpful, in case he was sincere, and testing whether he was sincere or not. He wasn't, his goal was disruption and to trap admins into blocking him, and this became totally obvious, so he was blocked and banned for six months. I think he imagined that this would trigger a revolt of the masses. His friends led him down the rosy path. JzG's friends are doing the same for him, I was the only "friend" who was straight with him, but he's got so many friends of the wrong kind -- the kind that won't tell you when you are making a mistake -- that he ultimately concluded I was deranged.

Maybe I am, after all. Are deranged people allowed to edit Wikipedia?

Reminds me, I offered to help ScienceApologist edit an article here to FA status. I want to see how he responded, I'll have to go to Wikisource. (Someone else may already have done it.) --Abd (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd, brevity is the soul of wit. It will change your life if you ever make an effort to understand the emotions and perceptions that cause you to be verbose rather than brief.

Yours in hope and Shakespeare,

Phil153 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you may not like me verbose, but I'm pretty sure you would more strongly dislike me brief, and you may have more opportunity to observe that soon; for starters, consider the present RfC. When I'm brief, it's because I've spent hours honing the text, the image is appropriate. It becomes sharp, designed to penetrate when applied. This is my Talk page. Would you come into my room and tell me I'm talking too much? If so, go away. If you have something helpful to say, come back when you are ready for that.--Abd (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, you have seriously entertained me today. I really didn't remotely imagine you'd try that bit of wikidrama. I'm sorry for the distress that this may be causing you, and suggest one thing: Don't think about me and what a dick I seem to be, but read the RfC and ask yourself, "Was I involved?" -- given the number of edits shown and the clear POV demonstrated, and which has continued to be demonstrated, even through today? And "did I use tools when involved?" And "Is this allowed by administrative policy?" If you don't realize that the answers are Yes, Yes, and No, you are dangerously unqualified to be an administrator and if you don't resign, you will be desysopped by ArbComm. That's not a threat, it's a warning and a prediction. Obviously, this isn't something I could do myself if I wanted to.

And if you do realize those answers, then there is a simple response: Change your response to the RfC to "Oops! My bad. I won't do it again." I can't withdraw the RfC, it's too late, even if I wanted to, but it would greatly defuse the matter, and you might keep your admin bit, if you still want it. Last chance? I don't know. I think that if, halfway through the arbitration, Physchim62 or Tango had made that "my bad" statement, they'd still be administrators. Don't say I didn't try. --Abd (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)