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

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.

Ugh! Worms taste awful.

Well, I have indeed opened a can of worms. Starting to write about the blacklisting process, I've realized that what I've seen with the two blacklisted cold fusion web sites was probably happening with others. Given the arguments given on the blacklist and whitelist pages, plenty of others. And, indeed, I noticed a whitelist request:

See this user page: User_talk:Lyriker

This user added 20 links to lyrikline.org on en.wiki, see Special:Contributions/Lyriker. As an IP editor (known by an edit to his Talk page, three more were added. IP geolocates to Berlin. Two of the links were added on 23 January 2008.

1. 12:41, 23 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m Paul Maar ‎ (→External links)
2. 12:23, 23 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m Michael Lentz

Lyriker was warned by User:MER-C at 12:43, 23 January 2008.

Lyriker responded civilly at 15:31.

Lyriker then requested MER-C to respond: [1]

Lyriker was blocked at 16:25, by Hu12, an active blacklist maintaining administrator. The block log reads:

• 16:24, 23 January 2008 Hu12 blocked Lyriker with an expiry time of indefinite [template]: Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address)

Lyriker did respond to the block notice on February 12, but did not put up an unblock template.

The user name "lyriker" does not imply "lyrikline.org," in the least. "Lyriker" is "poet" in German. So a new editor interested in poetry, takes the name "poet," then adds what seem to be helpful links to a major source for permitted copies of poetry as well as audio of the poets reading their own work. Looking at the web site, there isn't the slightest reason to suspect copyright violation. User:MER-C, on the user page, has a photo of a nuclear explosion, with the caption, Wikipedia disposes of another day's worth of vanity, spam, drivel and other rubbish. Talk about WP:BATTLE!

This was User:MER-C's compilation of evidence: User:MER-C/lyrikline.org. A Wikiproject spam report was filed at 12:52. The user was not notified of this. A massive effort then ensued to remove all links to lyrikline.org. Now, the user did, through IP known to be Lyriker, add links to other wikis. For example, this. Was this linkspam? That depends, surely, on whether or not the links were allowed. If linkspamming is cause for disallowing links, it's circular. Was Lyriker linkspamming or was Lyriker contributing valuable content? As a reader, it looks to me like the latter.

User:Hu12 took lyrikline.org to the meta blacklist, and it was added quickly. No discussion. It would seem to be, for these administrators, an obvious case, not marginal at all.

As to copyright violation: there seems to be a presumption of copyright violation in the absence of strong proof of no violation; claims of copyvio I have seem frequently in the cases I've looked at; but actual evidence of violation seems, in these cases, thin to nonexistent. It's an assumption.

The decision to allow a link in an article would generally be a matter for editors of the article to determine. However, I can agree that some project-wide standards can exist, and specific determinations could be made for a site; that's what the blacklist is supposed to be; except that it seems to be run by, well, administrators who "nuke" spam or "stifle" content. The project page, WP:WikiProject spam has a battleship image, with guns massively firing.

There was a delist request in March 2008, apparently from a German editor. Denied, because of the "excessive link placement."

There was a delist request on meta in April 2008. Denied. Reason: the original linkspamming evidence, plus the copyvio allegation. Conflict of interest is raised, which would seem to be an assumption based on the user name (a rather unlikely assumption, i.e., the user name does not at all imply association with the site) de.WP is mentioned (as it was in the original report.) Lyriker was not blocked on de.WP, though alleged linkspam there is part of the evidence of linkspamming. It's noted in the delist request that the blacklisting has been discussed on de.WP, but "nobody seems to know the reason."

What are the standards that were used to blacklist lyrikline.org? The lyrikline.org links were external links, and I read WP:EXT as allowing these links.

The whitelist request was denied. The blacklisters claim that, no problem, you can get pages you need whitelisted. But when whitelist is requested, it's jumping through hoops and requests seem typically denied for the orignal -- defective -- reasons. Can of worms. The readers? Who cares about the readers? It's our standards, man! --Abd (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read the discussions on the german wikipedia - they've also had the problem with de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Lyrik. He was also the IP:62.96.74.70 (check contribs to *.wikipedia: [2]). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't read German, but I suppose I could babelfish it. I'm not convinced that Lyriker here was a problem, but he did make a few edits as IP here, and he edited his Talk page as the IP, then logged in and signed it. This user wasn't trying to hide what he was doing. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that the project has been hijacked by administrators who are not serving the readers, they are serving an abstract concept of a neat, tidy encyclopedia. Lyrikline.org is a perfect example of a good External link. So somebody thinks it's a good idea to add it to articles, and does so. Immediately blocked? Kim, is this your vision of Wikipedia: harsh, unwelcoming, rigid, ingrown? I'll read the de.WP page. --Abd (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The user Lyrik was warned on de.WP, but not blocked. In the discussion, there is reference to cross-wiki spam, "supposedly by the operators." No evidence has been presented -- that I saw -- that the operators of lyrikline.org had anything to do with adding the links. That idea would seem to have originated from the name Lyriker. I.e., "Poet." Conclusion for de.WP? See the de.WP whitelist. It's not long, and lyrikline.org is right there. They didn't have a "problem with Lyrik," they had a problem with meta, which did not respond to delist requests from German users.

Now, we could try again to get lyrikline.org delisted. But the problem isn't simply about lyrikline, nor is it about a single administrator, it is about an entire culture of valiant warriors against POV-pushing, fringe advocates, vandals, and spammers. It's a battle being fought with entirely insufficient attention to collateral damage. The purpose of the project has been forgotten, in the heat of this constant struggle. What would have been a bad thing about leaving those links in place? What reader would have been misled or harmed?

JzG raised the specter of copyright violation risk to Wikipedia with lenr-canr.org, but the precedent he cites, I'm sure, has to do with knowingly linking to copyright violation. Where there is no reason to believe that copyright is being violated, there is no obligation to avoid linking to a page. WP:EL says, Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. I could find no policy that says, as it seems to be assumed by the blacklist administrators, that we must have proof of license to link to a page; indeed, the language of our policies implies only that knowingly linking to copyright violation should not be done. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason that lyrikline got whitelisted on de, wasn't that they weren't convinced of spamming - quite the opposite. But instead that a user volunteered to police (ie. check for spam) the links with regular intervals. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See below. What was the evidence of spamming? That a user added links, many of them (not a huge number, but it may have been something like thirty on de. How do we know the difference between spamming and legitimate addition of external links? I haven't looked at all the links, but most of them are still there, and those that aren't were removed by IP from Australia, our User:MER-C, I conclude, and quite likely simply escaped notice. In other words, where there was admin attention on de as to the usability of the links, consensus appears to be that they were fine. How many of them were actually "spam"? Looks like none of them to me, none that I've seen so far. There might be a few. So the only project where there as actual attention to the links themselves and their usability has concluded that they were legitimate. Can legitimate links be "spammed."?

I don't think so. Linkspam is, by definition, inappropriate linking, massively added, so massively that control by ordinary editorial measures, blocks, or bots, has become impossible. What everybody saw was a lot of links added by a single editor (as an account or as IP), and they concluded that this must be spam because it was a large quantity. Not what I'd call "massive," and the editor seems to have almost totally stopped when warned. But s/he was blocked anyway, because of a totally spurious claim of inappropriate username. What's the current state? Because of the whitelist request recently denied, it seems, someone looked at the bot that collects statistics on blacklisted domains and went to de and did assisted edits (clearly, but not labelled as such) to remove something like 22 links. And an admin there promptly warned the editor, and reverted them all.

The de response was reasonable: they didn't need a blacklisting to control this kind of possible spam. All that was needed was to look at the edits, and, in fact, that is and was extremely simple. There has been far more disruption and editorial labor required because of the blacklisting than was avoided. In any case, if this isn't directly resolved with low-level discussions, I'll be escalating it. Village Pump? What do you think? In the matter of stuff relating to Cold fusion, there was admin abuse, so AN might be appropriate, but with lyrikline.org's blacklisting, I don't see abuse, as such, but carelessness and snap judgments that didn't get corrected when challenged. The blacklisting/delisting/whitelisting process is broken, and is being used to enforce factional opinion regarding external link appropriateness, and not in accordance with those guidelines, and very clearly not in accordance with serving readers.

My theory is that a view of the project as some shining abstraction, pure, free of POV, with tight standards, is being held; that a "perfect encyclopedia" is the goal, and that the use of the encyclopedia matters less. Even if I read an article on a poet, and lyrikline.org contains actual readings from that poet (audio), and permitted copies of the poetry of that poet, a link to this isn't allowed. Because? Because someone allegedly linkspammed? But if all the links were similarly appropriate, it wasn't linkspam!

In another example, a book is legitimate source for an article. No dispute about that. However, the book is not common. Nevertheless, a citation of the book is allowed, rarity isn't an issue, since the book can be obtained, possibly, from some library. How difficult this is is not considered relevant. Now, as it happens, the author and publisher of the book have given permission for lenr-canr.org to host a copy of the book. Lenr-canr.org isn't the source, the book is. Can we link to the copy of the book at lenr-canr.org? Lenr-canr.org is alleged to be a fringe web site. Is that relevant? Who determines?

What the blacklist administrator who denied the whitelist request, initially (the admin has since recused himself), wrote was that because the link wasn't needed to verify the reference, whitelisting wasn't needed. That the difference in labor for the reader between using an ISBN reference to a linkfarm which will ultimately lead to a search for libraries with the book, and purchase sources, or simply linking to the free copy, was very great, wasn't considered to be of any importance whatever. I.e., some kind of not-clearly expressed set of rules about what can be linked, applied in the abstract, quite apart from the individual needs of articles or classes of articles, is considered to be of more importance than serving our readers. The "project" is more important than serving our readers with the best possible encyclopedia. And this is, to my mind, fundamentally backwards. To try to be all things to all readers would be foolish; Wikipedia shouldn't become a massive linkfarm; on the other hand, often, external links in Wikipedia articles have proven to be more valuable to me than whatever was written in the article. Sources are important, not just for verification, but for further study, and, indeed, this is how university students legitimately use Wikipedia. Just for verification, though, I once came across a reference to a published paper that seemed a little odd to me. The paper wasn't available on-line. The reference had stood for more than a year, unchallenged. Because the specific topic was of interest to me, I went to the trouble of finding it in a library. It had been radically and blatantly misinterpreted or misrepresented. (I think that there may have been accidental meanings of words in the abstract of the paper that was available on-line, I didn't think that evidence of deliberate misrepresentation existed. Rather, someone used the abstract as if it were the source!) If the paper had been accessible on-line, the misrepresentation would have been quickly discovered, I'm sure, since the article was one with frequent controversy and edit warring. The abstract concept of verifiability has taken precedence over the facilitation of verification. This is, in fact, a violation of WP:IAR, a fairly clear one. If we can find on-line copies of papers that appear to be with permission (legally, we are only required to avoid deliberately linking to copyvio, we don't need proof of permission), if the copies are deemed to be reliable copies, we should link to them when we source the paper, if they aren't available directly from the publisher or author. This is directly opposite to the expressed views of blacklist/whitelist administrators. --Abd (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn worms keep crawling out of my screen. I decided to look at the edits of Lyriker IP on de.wp, see [3]. These edits were cited as evidence of linkspam, among others. So looked at an article history: [4]. The addition of the lyrikline link on Jan 22, 2008 was followed by a revert from 124.178.51.181 on Jan 24. contributions for that IP is all on Jan 24, the IP is from Australia. In the meta blacklist discussion, User:MER-C stated: "I reverted all the IPs' edits." So that would be MER-C who removed them, probably not having an account on de.wp, the user just came in as IP and reverted. I found an article where, then, same day, lyrikline.org [5] was then reinserted by another editor. And so it sat until April, when it was again removed. However, some links were not removed then. See [6], where Lyrik moved a link that had been placed earlier by an IP edit. That link remained until Feb 3, when an editor was doing extensive reformatting and apparently could not save the page without removing the link. Thus the blacklist forces editors to remove blacklisted links whenever they edit a section containing one of them. This is why blacklist instructions require the removal of such links as part of the blacklisting process; however, MER-C did not complete the work. As another example, in August 2007, Lyrik (as IP) added the link to an article. There it stood until Kanonkas removed it on Jan 28, 2009 with reference to a spam monitoring tool; see discussion on Kanonkas Talk. Kanonkas contributions to de shows that Kanonkas removed 22 lyrikline links from de.wp that day. By the end of the day, apparently, they were all restored by User:lustiger seth, a de admin who is, now, also admin here (successful RfA in December). These would be the links that MER-C missed, apparently. --Abd (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On Palladium

Nice to come home and find an interesting conversation going on in my living room. Tea, coffee? --Abd (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the CF talk page you asked me: And I need to decide whether or not to put half my life savings into palladium. What do you think?

I brought it here since it's off topic. I don't know about Palladium but perhaps this is more worthy of investment? They have a working prototype, verified by other scientists, plus a number of high level scientists working on the actual project. And some very well credentialed investors, including convential commercial energy companies, who've provided $60 million in funding. These are smart people and they can't all be deluded. The only objections are theoretical ones, which you don't credit. Anyway, something to ponder on and maybe invest in! Phil153 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I allow myself to go off topic for a sentence or a few. You were right to bring this here, though there is a connection with Cold fusion. It's correct that I don't credit theoretical rejections of experimental results. However, theoretical explanations of experimental results are quite welcome; particularly when they then suggest further experiment. Further, that an experimental result is unexplained proves nothing. It's when experimental results are repeatable and unexplained that it gets really interesting. And of course, there is the problem of experimental results that are sometimes confirmed and sometimes not. With objective analysis, not contaminated by theoretical belief, it's possible to come up with a probability that this kind of variation could be normal. Or not. So, to me, a huge issue is the possible contamination of the scientific process by entrenched theory and possible conflicts of interest. It's an old, old story, actually.

In other words, I understand the concept of systematic error produced by a desire for positive results. Negative experiments are set aside ("something wrong with these") and only positive results are reported. Drug companies doing drug research, anyone? (The COI of drug companies is obvious, but the COI of someone who wants to find something exciting is just as real.) But I also understand the problem of massive rejection based on supposed theoretical impossibility. And I'm not seeing, in my reading on the topic, any recent reviews of the field that do the kind of meta-analysis that is needed.

A group of smart people can all be deluded. But I wouldn't bet on it. It's more likely, on average, that they aren't. However, Blacklight Power is a private company. All kinds of weird things could be going on there. They sold kits at one point. Did these kits work? I've had some similar thoughts, though I'd aim for something quite modest: a home palladium electrolysis kit that would include all the materials and equipment needed to run some simple experiments. Plug it in to the wall, install some software on your computer, plug a USB cable between the computer and the device, and watch the results. Which are also centrally collected. Kit construction and sources are thoroughly documented. Kits consist of several parts, and each part can be purchased separately, the basic kits would be (1) consumables or equipment that is damaged in the process, (2) operating equipment (power supply, control interface, instrumentation. Software would be open source and free. The company selling the kits would buy the operating equipment back. Project Galileo run by New Energy Times attempted to set up some standard reproducible experiments, but Krivit told me that getting a group of maverick researchers to agree on anything was difficult to impossible. I understand. But with the model I just suggested, you don't need to get a whole bunch of mavericks to agree, you just find out what they think, what has worked for them, and try to come up with a kit design, that most agree should work, privately, i.e., the ultimate decision is made by those who invest in the company (or donate to it if it's non-profit, or as a nonprofit board decides). (The kit would probably use co-deposition, since the SPAWAR group is claiming reproducibility, and it should be possible to miniaturize it so that the consumables are cheap.) With a couple of iterations, early on, the effort would either show that such a simple demonstration is still not possible -- which would essentially blow the SPAWAR results out of the water as far as reasonable replication is concerned -- or that something is reproducible. What is the something. Since these would be standard kits, all as identical as possible, it then becomes much more possible to find out. There may be a thousand ways of doing it "wrong," i.e., the experimental anomaly doesn't show up, and only one way to do it right. The "right" has to be reproducible before it can be determined what exact experimental conditions are necessary, and then to vary them or observe them or quantify them, etc., to explore the mechanism. You know the most expensive part of the kits? CR-39 chips. It appears that one sheet of the stuff is like $600; but with a miniaturized experiment, it might be possible to get a hundred chips that are big enough for maybe $6 each.

It was assumed initially that the experiment was simple to reproduce. Fleischmann never claimed that; he wrote later that he was nowhere near ready to announce, but the university insisted. It seems to have taken many years to come up with methods that usually produce the anomalies. What if, for example, there is some element that must be present in trace quantities to catalyze, say, fusion? Fleischmann-type results seem to depend heavily on the exact source of palladium. The kits I mention would probably use a single source and batch of palladium chloride, they would include water and lithium chloride, all the same source and batch. Same glassware, stoppers, electrodes, etc. Computer control of the charging profile would make it all uniform. And the project would be funded by the experimenters, lots of them (high school science fair project, anyone?). The goal of this would not be to prove that cold fusion -- or whatever the hell it is -- works, but simply to create a standardized experiment that shows the anomaly, and failure is in itself interesting. While the experimenter still has the full kit, and hasn't returned the experimentation package, variations could be tried. This approach should be far cheaper than trying to put together a kit from published descriptions. Anybody could run an experiment, either the standardized one, or modifications. I believe that the consumables could be sold for under $100 (possibly well under). CR-39 analysis could be done by a standard lab. The full package would be sold for well under $1000, and that's essentially refundable, less what is simply a handling charge to cover costs of cleaning and testing, etc., and a small amount to support the capitalization. Want to continue experimenting? All the elements are available for sale, the hardware/instrumentation kit would simply be kept (the buyback offer might expire or be modified at some point, simply because the kit, as sold, would become obsolete).

Blacklight Energy? I wouldn't rule it out. Maybe. No, I wouldn't put my money there, I still think the possibility of fraud to be too high. See below. Palladium is, well, solid stuff. The current price is quite low, compared to history, because of the collapse of the auto industry, which buys tons of palladium for use in catalytic converters. I'd say it's a good investment right now. It might decline in price a bit more, but not likely to go far. If I were adventurous and willing to take a lot of risk, palladium futures would be the way to go. But I'm not. Either the metal itself or secure deposit in a solid bank. Credit Suisse used to offer palladium accounts. They would actually buy the metal and hold it on your behalf, but because you never took possession, the only risk was of the failure of Credit Suisse, accompanied by fraud. Not likely. (The accounts, of course, paid no interest; indeed, there was a modest storage charge, and there were fees for every buy or sell transaction. But it was, in 1989, far, far simpler than actually buying the metal. No profit for the seller, no tax issues, profit and loss very clear. Spot prices. Credit Suisse could buy and sell with the greatest facility, their service was well worth the fees. (These accounts were used by Muslims because no interest was involved, yet they would track inflation.. Gold accounts were, I'm sure, much more popular.) --Abd (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussing your first two paragraphs, and this: A group of smart people can all be deluded. But I wouldn't bet on it. It's more likely, on average, that they aren't, I'm going to run through some simple reasoning that often gets forgotten.

a priori, a group of smart people is a bad thing to bet against. We agree. But selection bias destroys that completely. Look at it this way: in a group of hundreds of thousands of professional physicists and chemists, some percentage are going to be convinced of the truth of evidence for a non existent phenomenon, X. The great diversity of competence, experiences, desire, philosophies, care, laziness and sanity guarantees that. Further, I think certain conditions make X a stronger candidate to be believed by a reasonable number of people, despite X being false:

• The experiment to show X relies on measurements in the same order of magnitude as error
• The experiment to show X relies on equipment which is frequently unreliable (i.e. calorimetry...ask an impartial expert)
• The experiment to show X relies on equipment that is easy to use but requires much specialist ability and care for accuracy
• X has the possibility of greatly helping the human race if true, or vindicating some personal belief or hope about reality.
• X holds the promise of great personal reward (broadly construed)
• X has a body of apology explaining why replication is likely to be sporadic and uncontrollable
• X has an experimental setup requiring a great deal of time and effort to get a result

And guess what? Many of these points apply to fringe fields. Look at parapsychology and attempts to prove quantum-consciousness links (one such long running group is PEAR, which went for 30 years claiming irrefutable proof).

There are many kinds of selection bias operating to select believers in X. If X, our hypothetical non existent phenomenon, has a good possibility of error unless extreme care is taken, and scientists generally become convinced by their own results more than anything else (Goodstein 1994), then enough researchers attempting an X experiment will self assemble into groups. One group will contain those lacking the care, competence, philosophical sophistication, expertise in some aspect, etc, to reliably avoid and minimize errors, which is the reason they keep getting positive results. They will eventually become the proponents of our non existence phenomenon, X. The very careful experimenters, those who are experts in every relevant skill and diligently seek falsification, will try it, find nothing, and move on. So you end up with walled gardens consisting of people who have a tendency to err in particular ways (remember that X is non existent).

Do you see what I'm getting at? Importantly, as far as cold fusion is concerned, observation seems to bear that out. Most of the papers I've read are so poorly done, so contradictory, so unaware that I wonder about their ability to do good experiments in this particular area. And it's not just me; the few pieces of external review we have seem to strongly support that. For example, most of the DOE researchers pointedly noted the poor experimental designs, documentation, and background controls, which hampered understanding. And those were from a sample selected by the most credentialed people in the field, as the best available evidence, conclusively demonstrating LENR. Are you seeing what I'm seeing? The other external window we have on the field is from a judge in Italy in 1996, who hear both side's arguments in a libel suit brought by Fleischmann, Pons, Bressani, Preparata and Giudice against a newspaper. The judge's conclusion was that the researchers seemed "separated from reality", and he awarded the win and costs to the defendants. More conspiracy? More bias? Judge Stupido? Or an honest and independent assessment of the most credentialed proponents in the field?

In conclusion, I don't think we can look at any of these fields and conclude that because a couple of hundred reasonably credentialed scientists (out of many tens of thousands) and 20 or so highly credentialed scientists (out of a couple of thousand), agree with X, there must be something to it. If they were a random cross section, then I would be far more inclined to give it the huge amount of weight that you do.

And frankly I think you're too swayed by the rhetoric of true believers, and too quick to believe that the quiet disbelievers aren't careful thinkers or "haven't actually looked at the evidence". Certainly, some haven't, perhaps many, and I agree that science does have pathologies of the status quo. Both socially and pedagoguically (is that a word?), undergrad and postgrad physics are little more than indoctrination camps in the status quo. Our current teaching methods trap entire generations of creative and fresh minds into looking at nature from a particular bias. But even so, nuclear physics has a good stable of curious, conscientious thinkers, and people like Goodstein should give you pause, I think. And so should Josephson, who you mentioned below. Do you know that he also believes in a quantum-consciousness link, and other kooky stuff? Coincidence? Evidence of openmindedness, or something less flattering? In my own wonderings, I haven't found a single CF advocate yet who doesn't raise major questions in my mind about their reliability as a witness and experimenter for such a complex subject. See, for example, the Washington Post article that I like to quote [7]. I don't see the depth of thought, care, philosophical sophistication and an appreciation of subtlety sufficient for me to trust their claims, their experiments and their thinking. Even a single advocate who didn't have these deficiencies would see me reevaluate my position.

BTW, I agree that the evidence for Blacklight is very different to the evidence for cold fusion. Not even close in volume or quality. But I thought it would be a fun way of pinning down your exact position, and I'm glad you took it good naturedly. Phil153 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, as to what you have written about selection bias, most of it is quite correct and some of it is applicable. To determine whether selection bias is operating, one needs to much more comprehensively look at the details. For example, to apply this to LENR evidence, we'd have to assume, for your first characteristic, that LENR evidence relies on on measurements in the same order of magnitude as error. Now, it's possible to come to conclusions from many such measurements, but that's not the biggest problem with this application. Some experimental results, especially early ones, were like that. There are now results where the signal to noise ratio is more like 100:1. There is the matter of CR-39. I'd say that the issue of whether or not the CR-39 effects are due to ionizing radiation or due to chemical damage or some kind of localized corona effect still exists, to a degree, but it's been mostly addressed. In particular, a mylar shield was placed between the cell cathode/electrolyte and the detector and the claimed alpha radiation effect was reduced, as would be expected from the mylar, i.e., but it was not gone. Further, at some point it was noticed that the back side of the chip had apparent radiation damage. That's not coming from alpha radiation. There is a likely explanation: neutrons, which do not themselves damage CR-39. But proton recoil does. There are many, many evidences where the signal is far above noise (in this case, background radiation, with the chemical and corona hypotheses pretty well disproven).

What we'd want to know is what the opinion is among experts who are familiar with the evidence. There is still selection bias, but if you read debates and discussion among the researchers, you'd see that they are mostly far from ready to jump to conclusions. There is vigorous criticism going on within the field. I'll address more details later. The Galileo project did, apparently, have positive results. This was an attempt at a standard, very highly defined, reproducible experiment, repeated by many groups. It was not designed to prove "cold fusion," but to come up with an experimental design that showed the effects. Kowalski's somewhat critical work is pretty amateurish, but the SPAWAR work isn't. Phil, what I've been saying to you is that I understand the reasons to be critical and I see that there is enough going on that assuming that cold fusion is disproven would be foolish. There are open questions, there has been insufficient confirmation, in my opinion, given the potential importance.

Calorimetry is indeed difficult, that is certainly an issue. However, there have been improvements in calorimetry since 1989. These improvements have not made the results go away. For us to use anything around this we need secondary sources. There are some in normally reliable news sources. What's needed to go beyond this is review articles published in "mainstream" journals. And that's what is very difficult to get; my guess at this point is that the articles are being written and are not being published because of the bad reputation of the field. It is really hard to find recent comprehensive review of the field in independent reliable source. New Energy Times is actually pretty good: for example, Krivit debunked the company D2fusion, possibly contributing to its demise (a probably deserved demise). NET doesn't uncritically accept results, though it may report them. The comment about critics who don't know the latest research comes from Krivit, who interviewed these people. Have you read his account? --Abd (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me see if I read this correctly. They take nickel which is doped with sodium hydroxide and, presumably, mix it with water. They then observe a sudden burst of heat. Gee, that IS mysterious, isn't it? The good news is that at least it is reproducible.  :) --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. The claims are that those who have reproduced it find it difficult to account for the excess heat through chemical process. The question here is how much heat is produced. Further, if the heat is chemically generated, this might still be interesting as a kind of battery. How efficient is it? Etc. If I'm correct, they are not claiming cold fusion. Just heat. Smart. --Abd (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's kind of analagous to packing large amounts of combustible hydrogen into cells that are nearly always open to the air, then running a spark through them, and getting heat bursts. Don't you think? Even if NaOH plays a role, the total power integrated over the life of the experiment is claimed to far exceed anything possible from chemical reactions. They claim a sustained 50KW. And a careful reading of the article shows that amount of NaOH is very small, and that even the sporadic results obtained are "far beyond" anything expected by chemical reactions. In addition, they have a "good handful of high level scientists", and a former government Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy, as well as energy companies, putting money in. These aren't schmucks, but very smart people putting up $60M of their own dough, as well as their reputations. So far, the ONLY dismissal by mainstream science are based on theory, from people who haven't even tested the thing! All the experiments support the claims. You would have to deny the laws of thermodynamics and called all the researchers deluded to deny these results. Seems like an obvious investment for someone who uses similar logic about cold fusion and is looking to invest. Phil153 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. An investment in palladium is solid regardless of CF claims. But if CF or LENR is confirmed, palladium would experience a fairly rapid increase in value. Nickel? No, there is a lot of nickel available, the impact on the nickel market would be much smaller. Given that this is a private company, some crucial details are still secret, the possibility for fraud, for starters, is way too high. They should not be dismissed, and, indeed, what they are doing seems to be notable and should be covered by the project, but this is well below what is available as confirmation on LENR. "All the experiments" seems to be just a few, with control of crucial experimental conditions by the company.

The kits I mentioned would not be "scientific proof," because of tight control of the conditions by a company (even if a nonprofit dedicated to neutrality, openness, and not dependent on "positive" results). Rather, studies of the kits, reproduction of the kits with various degrees of independence, including total reproduction using nothing from the kit company, would then, when published in peer-reviewed reliable sources, get closer. And when this reaches the level of secondary review, it starts to be something that could be reported as fact, depending on the level of controversy that remains. Long before that, however, we'd probably see news reports, etc., that would allow us to inform the readers of the state of affairs in the field.

I'd like to get more information about what exactly happened with project Galileo. You know, there is a journal which reported the results; journalistic standards appear to have been followed; the publication covers the field, but as far as I've seen, covers it neutrally, i.e., critical work is reported; it just happens to be that there isn't much of that! And we have blacklisted that on-line journal, newenergytimes.com. Without linkspamming, without even a clear debate, but simply assertions of "fringe." I don't think this will stand. It's quite analogous to banning an editor because of their alleged POV. We can use fringe sources, if they are notable and attributed. (Balance is a separate issue, and has to do with how and where a source is used.) --~~

"claimed sustained 50KW" - which apparently has been running since May, but which no-one has seen. "Far beyond", "good handful of scientists", and a politico. Hmmm. But what really interesting is the claim that "hydrinos" form diatomic molecules, apparently while the electrons that provide the binding are still in one of the sekrit sub-s orbitals. Sure... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, when there are unexplained experimental results, crazy hypotheses are welcome. Stephen, skepticism is appropriate, but sarcastic rejection is highly unscientific. Basically, you are not standing on science, and the "scientific consensus" that you seem to be following is, in this case, not a deliberated and considered one, but a kind of default persistence of opinion from those not involved with the field. Ask your average scientist about "cold fusion." "Ah! that hoax from twenty years ago! Junk science!" Ask those familiar with the peer-reviewed literature from the last ten years, you may get a very different answer. What Krivit found and reported, interviewing the notable skeptics, was that they didn't know the recent research, and some of them angrily dismissed any raising of the issue. That is a symptom of ossified science, I've seen it happen in a number of fields. It's not the norm, and it is not at all the same as what happens, scientifically, with Global warming. Remember, the 2004 DOE report acknowledged persistent experimental anomalies, and suggested continued research to identify the cause, they just didn't think the evidence was strong enough to warrant a massive federal program. "Not convincing," is not a polite expression for "Junk." Simply for results and theories not yet advanced to the point of being "convincing." For a general panel. (That is expertise on the panel wasn't necessarily focused closely on those who would have been following the field, but rather would include nuclear physicists, as an example, entirely unfamiliar with electrochemistry, as an example, or calorimetry in that context.) --Abd (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, "crazy" hypotheses are only welcome as a last resort. There is an infinite number of crazy hypotheses. The chances of picking the right one are minuscule. Its much more fruitful to start with the boring ones. Also, of course, "Blacklight Energy" has nothing to do with cold fusion, but rather with supposed energy states of the electron below the normal base state. For some weird reasons, these are never observed directly, or by independent researchers, or in nature. And somehow the electrons in this Hydrino are still supposed to form covalent bonds despite being below the ground state. This is complete and utter nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you start with the boring hypotheses, but when these are rejected because they don't fit the facts, one must move into more exotic ideas. Now, where does "deliberate fraud" fit in here? As the New York Times wrote, "seems unlikely," or some language like that, but I'd not discount it. Mills might be trying to raise large amounts of investment funds, for example, then, before the moment of truth, the reckoning that nobody can reproduce the effect, he disappears. I'll follow the Times, though. This guy didn't just appear, and the theory behind what they are doing isn't lightweight. If it's a snow job, it's a quite well done one. Look, Stephen, I don't know if you care about being smart or not, i.e., being able to see beyond the prison of belief, but I could tell you how to do it: it is to suspend judgment until one must judge. To hold, simultaneously, multiple conflicting opinions. Lots of people can't do it, which is why lots of people are considered geniuses. To be able to do this, though, correlates poorly with being well-organized, which is why, indeed, lots of people are "so smart," but aren't "rich."

(edit conflict) Blacklight energy is claiming independent verification of the energy involved, but details are scant as yet. What was done was to supply the prepared "fuel," being a form of nickel doped with a "little" sodium hydroxide. Above, it's noted that chemical reactions from this material, and air or water, could produce heat, and certainly it could. However, how much heat? What is being claimed is that calorimetry shows -- and this is relatively straightforward calorimetry, apparently -- shows something like 100 times the heat being generated as could be explained by the chemistry. I.e., nickel will burn, under the right conditions. So it all burns, everything in there burns, perhaps extracting hydrogen from the water, which also burns (the hydrogen, not the water, which is fully oxidized, but which holds on to hydrogen less strongly than some metals. Why hasn't Blacklight Energy published the exact formula and process? Two easy explanations: fraud, trying to gather funding before having proven the process, or, quite simply, money. Blacklight claims the latter, they are internally researching it and want to have a leg up before releasing details. Note that Blacklight has apparently been pursuing patents that haven't been granted, but some Caltech researchers did get a patent last year on hydrino energy, it's claimed to be, using Casimir cavities to extract energy from the vacuum of space, and it is claimed that this explains the Blacklight Energy device or process. In other words, somebody else may have beat them to it, so the only advantage they have is their trade secrets. Fraud or investment and financial prudence?

Let me put it this way: Before putting money into BE, I'd certainly want to see a lot more, and I'd want to have my own experts review it. Under nondisclosure agreements, BE should be willing to disclose it all. And if not, well, rats do smell, you know. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there some relation. Edmund Storms, a prominent cold fusion researcher, brought it up in his book as a possible explanation for cold fusion (see Hydrino theory). Phil153 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Storm tries to co-opt this, which really does not help his credibility at all. But Blacklight does not claim cold fusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While I am certainly not trying to say that I believe in these hydrinos, personally I don't see the hypothesis that there may be additional stable energy states below the one that we currently consider to be the base all that "crazy" or "outlandish". It seems a natural extension of existing theory. Contrast this, for example, against something like Schrödinger's cat being simultaneously alive and dead just until someone happens to peek inside the box. To me that is a far more radical concept than the one being described here and yet it is widely accepted and not considered fringe, right? --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, and its interpretation is highly non-trivial. It's a macroscopic illustration of a quantum phenomenon, and no-one claims that this experiment can be done at the macroscopic level, since you cannot achieve the total isolation of the system from the observer. Lower quantum states of the hydrogen atom are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They may appear "plausible", but not to someone with a reasonable understanding of physics. If you look at Hydrino theory, you might notice that several of the critical papers are published in reputable journals, but the supporting sources are only company white papers or, at best on arXiv. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet no one seems to be referring to Schrödinger as a "whacko".  :)

"They may appear 'plausible', but not to someone with a reasonable understanding of physics." - And hence my statement that I don't "believe" in hydrinos. "Plausible" is probably too strong a description of my actual statement. "Possible" is probably a better fit.

"Lower quantum states of the hydrogen atom are incompatible with quantum mechanics." - Which is only significant if one accepts the theory of quantum mechanics as it is currently defined ... which may of course be completely wrong. --GoRight (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's, I think, the rub. Our current scientific theories are quite likely wrong. But they are very probably not "completely wrong", but wrong only in subtle aspects that have little influence on the scales we usually observer. Newtonian physics is at least doubly wrong, but it's an incredibly good approximation for the middle world - in fact, it emerges both from general relativity as the limit if you move to smaller and slower systems, and from quantum mechanics as you move to larger systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted to some level. But how do you know that quantum mechanics is not merely at the Ptolemaic level in our understanding of the truth? Sure you can make predictions with the current quantum theories, but so could Claudius Ptolemy right? That didn't make him even close to right. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ships passing in the night? "Completely wrong" was, of course, unlikely. Rather, "not complete" would be all that is necessary for a conclusion that something is impossible to be "completely wrong."

Many-worlds interpretation

Stephan's comment above got me to thinking and since we are talking about weird fringe stuff, I was curious about what you all think of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Do any of you subscribe to this particular view? If not, do you consider this to be a fringe idea? Actually, a quick review of the Interpretation of quantum mechanics yields a entire cornucopia of possibilities which are not being treated as fringe. I just find that kind of funny given the efforts being put into calling Cold fusion/LENR/CANR fringe. (Let me know if you don't want to entertain this on your talk page, Abd.) --GoRight (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine as long as you remain polite. If I don't like it, I can always quickly archive or even delete. My Talk page. Love it or leave it. The topic of what is "fringe" is an interesting one, though it really shouldn't have the significance it's made to have. Reliable source for a theory or claim, it's usable on the project, and calling the topic or POV "fringe" often leads to ... well, incivility, among other things. Just like calling an article on your favorite video game "fancruft."

Now, on the question of "fringe," I came across this: [8]. In it, Nobel prize-winner and Cambridge physics professor Brian Josephson recounts his experiences with arXiv.org related to cold fusion. Sounds a tad like Wikipedia.... Our article on him led me to his home page at [9] (it's an External link! Fringe advocacy! Call the blacklisters!). And this led me to a very interesting article by Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, an article which tends to confirm my impression of Krivit as a serious journalist. Claims that I've seen that the CF community isn't self-critical aren't supported by this article. I'd link to the article except, of course, NET is blacklisted. But wait, it's easy to link to it, just pick the top hit: [10] Take that, blacklisters!

Seriously, links are not only used in articles: links that can't be used for articles may be used for discussion. To add a link to my Talk page here, should I ask for whitelisting? It might take a week (and would probably be denied).--Abd (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just use "nowiki" tags around the link: http://www.newenergytimes.com/SR/Planktos/MyExperienceWithANobelPrizeWinner.htm --Enric Naval (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've been doing it, though I've found something that's just a tad more convenient for the reader: do a google search on the filename, so far I've found that a lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com filename is often, first hit, on those sites. Then use the search as a link. If not, a little more specificity works. I also think that the domains included in a search don't trigger the blacklist. The blacklistings inhibit not only use in articles (where we definitely would not want an indirect link like that, guidelines suggest not using such in articles) but Talk and Wikipedia space, all spaces. The spam and blacklisting guidelines generally seem to be assuming article usage of links. I don't think the Mediawiki software for the blacklist allows distinguishing namespaces. The nowiki solution, though, isn't necessary. If I just write newenergytimes.com/SR/Planktos/MyExperienceWithANobelPrizeWinner, for example, you can copy that into modern browsers and they will supply the http://.

Take a look at whitelisting requests. It's not hard to find examples of what is arguably improper blacklisting, and, often, the requests are denied. Blacklisting is done even if no connection is shown between the alleged spammer and the blacklisted site. I still haven't seen evidence of linkspamming for newenergytimes.com. The argument appears to be that NET is allegedly fringe and therefore not usable. Because in the debates (that were raised because of my questioning of this, plus Durova filed a request on meta (not realizing that it wasn't a meta blacklisting for NET) Pcarbonn was mentioned, it seriously looks like the real reason is that NET published an article by Pcarbonn on Wikipedia; quite a good article, by the way, worth reading carefully. He was topic banned almost certainly because of that article, which allegedly established an intention to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Ignored in all this is that the anti-fringe crowd -- and the blacklisters and antispammers -- very clearly treat WP as a battleground. Look at the image on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and the user page of MER-C, who raised the report that led to the blacklisting of lyrikline.org, a very interesting case. Evidence for linkspamming: a single user adds links to articles on poets who have permitted copies on lryiklink and audio of them reading. Regardless of -- and with no discussion of -- actual relevance and appropriateness, the user is blocked (even though behavior did not continue after warning), the links removed, and the domain meta blacklisted (because links were added in a number of wikis.) Now, the user is located in Berlin, and the most links were added to de. Users on de have gone to meta to request delisting. Denied, based on the alleged linkspamming. So de simply whitelisted the domain. Recently, a few days ago, one of our users went to de and removed a series of links, based on the spam charges. This user was warned, and an administrator (who is also admin here) reverted all the changes. The difference: they actually discussed the issue on de, the decision was made by other than the valiant warriors who man battleship anti-spam.

I could certainly pursue the individual case. However, that's not my inclination. Why clean up just one mess when there are hundreds of them, new ones being created all the time, and a subculture that creates and supports making these messes, and it would be more efficient to address this systemically?

Absolutely, the blacklist is a mediawiki extension that makes sense. If you look at the raw blacklist, most sites are obviously not appropriate, and there is true linkspamming where the blacklist is appropriate. However, the designers of the blacklist were aware how it could be abused to control content, and therefore the guidelines and procedures were written to prevent abuse. And those guidelines are being ignored by the admins who run it. Wikitheory would suggest that when an established user requests delisting or whitelisting, the default should be to grant it with little fuss. The reverse appears to be true. The burden of proof is on the whitelist requester, and the original blacklisting is cited as evidence the whitelisting shouldn't be granted. Blacklist admins are openly acknowledging that other issues besides linkspamming are being considered. That's very dangerous. Lyrikline.org is a clear case where multiple addition of links was presumed, with no further consideration, to be linkspamming. However, the guidelines suggest a higherlevel of linkspamming before blacklisting would be considered. What we see with lyrikline.org is that the very fact that a user added links to en and de (and a few other wikis) was considered sufficient proof of linkspamming. In the only case where this was directly considered by other than blacklist admins, the links were found to be legitimate, and they stand (with local whitelisting, since delisting on meta was denied). Now the evidence used to support blacklisting was the links, including the links on de. De decided that the links were legitimate. So legitimate links were used to support blacklisting. The links on en were the same, often the same subjects.

In the situation that first called my attention to the situation, the links actually used in articles to lenr-canr.org (and newenergytimes.com) were standing in articles; with Cold fusion certainly there was substantial support for these links, they were not only inserted by Pcarbonn. In fact, most of them weren't, and Pcarbonn seems to have removed links (all of them, I think) as a compromise with ScienceApologist or others. But links came back, from other editors. No link was removed by JzG, preparing to blacklist, that wasn't arguably legitimate. The evidence given in his blacklisting notice (he bypassed process, directly blacklisting, as an administrator, instead of requesting it) was alleged Rothwell linkspamming. But not one example of actual linkspamming was shown. Instead, Rothwell typically, as do many experts and COI editors, appends his title: "librarian, lenr-canr.org." not a link. Blacklisting is useless to prevent this. Citation of those edits, however, presented an appearance of linkspamming enough to convince the overworked and underpaid admins who run the local and meta blacklists. And then he tacked on the fringe and POV-pushing charges.

However, I will probably challenge a few individual blacklistings, because this will create the background for a broader solution. If I can't establish at least one improper blacklisting, then, the claim will surely be, that WP:IAR requires the blacklistings and the guidelines don't matter. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And this would be correct, if there weren't a substantial number of improper blacklistings taking place and if it were easy to undo damage. It is not easy. At all. Ask User:Enric Naval. He's requested three pages from lenr-canr.org be whitelisted. One was ultimately granted. Two have been denied, though in one case the denying admin then recused himself. We'll see what happens with that. There are only a very few admins who manage the blacklists (local or meta), and, big surprise, they tend to back each other up, instead of independently reviewing the listings. That may not be difficult to fix: just get some other admins involved, on request. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that you can also add "site:aaa.bbb" into a google search to restrict results to a specific domain to make the results really specific. For example, [11]. Alternatively, one could use a free url redirection service such as http://www.shorturl.com/ to create an alias for the sites, although this may be looked upon as evading the blacklist. I doubt that (1) they could even make a case that a Google search is evasion, and (2) that they will be willing to also blacklist www.google.com to enforce the blacklists on these sites.  :) --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a snowball's chance that a link used in Talk as the above, for reasonably legitimate discussion, would be considered blacklist evasion (which isn't clearly an offense, anyway, but that's another story). Google searches are used quite frequently in Talk, as, for example, in AfDs, where search results can be used as evidence of notability sometimes. There are so many such links that blacklisting would be an enormous and disruptive effort. Could be done with bots, I suppose. Only if they can make blacklists space-specific, such as only applying to article space, could they manage to get away with blacklisting google. And blacklisting google from mainspace could make sense. But I don't think the software can do that. I should check. The shortcuts are typically blocked, such as tinyurl.com is blocked, I think. Obvious why.

This is the dirty little secret of the blacklist: if you read the blacklist guidelines, blacklisting is supposed to be a measure of last resort, after simple removal, warnings, blocks, and bot removal have failed. The guidelines aren't being followed, not even close. And one or more admins who run the blacklists/whitelists have acknowledged this, they consider it totally legitimate to add undocumented function, not a problem. I.e., the blacklist is designed for linkspam problems. But, hey, we can keep fringe advocacy web sites out with it, and we can decide that sites have copyright violations without any evidence of same, only lack of proof of permission as we deem necessary (not as copyright law deems necessary). Why not use it for that? Well, I can certainly say why, but it seems to escape those operating the blacklists. One admin, today, actually suggested that I assume good faith, as if I wasn't. He assumed I was ignorant of the history of a situation, when, from what he wrote and from what he's written on it in the past, he practically hasn't a clue, comparatively. I.e., every fact he alleged was true, I already knew it, but he'd neglected most of what I'd written and simply reasserted old arguments that I had answered. AGF isn't the same as assuming competent performance in all cases! I've been raising the matter of lyrikline.org, which is practically a textbook case of blacklist misuse. Turns out it is easy to find these. Just look through denied whitelist requests! (Those that came from ordinary registered editors, not site owners, though it seems that many site owner requests are also arguably legitimate. True spammers don't bother!) We'll see.

In one case, yesterday I think it was, I found that a site had been blacklisted because it was suspected that it might be used in linkspam, I'm not sure what the grounds were -- the evidence that is cited in the reports is less than transparent, there is a huge pile of data with little guidance as to where to look -- but when I questioned the denial of whitelisting from someone who requested it, an admin did look and went ahead and removed it from the blacklist. The system is not entirely broken, but ... it shouldn't be so hard. The blacklist is set up entirely for the convenience of linkspam fighters. And fighters they are. You know why Pcarbonn was blocked? Because he was alleged to have declared an intention to make Wikipedia a battleground, i.e., to violate WP:BATTLE. (Whether he did so or not is another matter.) Well, take a look at the current page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Picture of a battleship firing all guns, spectacularly, captioned "WikiProject Spam engaging spammers off the coast of Wikilandia.". User who identified the alleged lyrikline.org "spam" is User:MER-C. User page image: a nuclear explosion, captioned "Wikipedia disposes of another day's worth of vanity, spam, drivel and other rubbish." It could be dismissed as a joke, but ... these editors and adminstrators do deal with a high volume of trash, I think, and they come to see themselves as embattled, and then they see vandals and spammers and POV-pushers underneath every edit that doesn't fit what they expect. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra began discussing here, in detail, some of the blacklisting issues I have raised elsewhere (and above here on my Talk); because he responds with important explanations and cogent apology for standing practice, I am moving this to the Talk page for a document I'm creating on the topic of blacklisting, User talk:Abd/Blacklist. Participation by all editors is welcome, provided the goal is to seek consensus. It is possible, at the outset, that all that is needed is better documentation, in the guidelines, of existing practice (which deviates rather widely from the guidelines); on the other hand, it is possible that better delisting and whitelisting review practices, involving independent editors and administrators from those who do blacklisting, could be a result, as an example. --Abd (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All is well

I think. The issues seem to have more or less evaporated because of your help. It would seem that the parties involved made their points... many aspects were drawn out ... and some compromise was made... because of the facts, by both parties. I appreciate your help and insight and ability to overview the situation and make a neutral ground 'construct' for addressing the information. The article has regained its stability, at least in the usual existential nature of things Wikipedic. If I can be of help to you in the future let me know. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, both of you are to be credited with being willing to participate in a more patient process. What was really important was that both of you stepped back from edit warring, stepped back from the idea that the article had to be ideal, and right now. Then you could discuss more calmly, and in more detail, and, I'd say, the important element was that the goal of the conversation was to discover if consensus was possible. What could you agree on? In some disputes I see, it might be hard to get the parties to agree that today is Monday, so convinced are they that the other side is wrong. It's kind of hard to compromise with someone whom you believe is totally wrong, worse than a stopped clock, which is, after all, right twice a day. Anyway, you guys did it, I mostly just set up the space and watched. At some point, that discussion should be referenced in Talk for the article. Good luck. Indeed, I might need your help some day. Not everyone appreciates what I do here. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Woop

There it is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with that particular blacklisting, but could you please not accuse people of 'abusive blacklisting' etc. As you can see that approach hasn't work. And starting a crusade about debatable black-listings isn't going to get you anywhere with the arguably correct blacklisting you originally took issue with.--Misarxist (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, WP:SPADE. There are thousands of blacklistings, and I have only seen one incident where there was serious COI (technically, "involvement") by an administrator. However, "abuse" has two meanings: intention and effect. An action may have an abusive effect even if intended to help the project. I began with a concern about two blacklistings that were made totally out of process, by an administrator involved with Cold fusion, see User:Abd/JzG which was cited in an ArbComm RfAr raised by JzG and which did attract comment from reputable editors that involvement was clear and that JzG shouldn't be using tools (which includes adding entries to the blacklist) in related matters. However, in attempting to clean it up, I ran into entrenched opposition from blacklist administrators. There is a discussion at User talk:Abd/Blacklist, where two admins very involved in blacklisting process defend it. My comment about "abusive blacklisting" isn't intend to "win" some case. Indeed, if that were my goal, I wouldn't mention it. In the case of lyrikline.org, have you seen any comment from me that did other than assume good faith? If so, please let me know so I can redact it. However, the case page, User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org, shows clearly that the blacklisting process, and, even more seriously, the delisting and whitelisting process, is badly broken and violates guidelines. My goal is to fix it, so that both goals can be met: prevention of linkspam and improvement of articles.

Not one credible allegation was made in the whole process of blacklisting lyrikline.org that the links added harmed the project. One wiki, the home wiki, first wiki edited by the IP that later registered as Lyrik there and as User:Lyriker here, hosted the links for almost three years without incident. A few of the links were removed as inappropriate (and those are debatable, actually) but most of them were standing until the blacklisters took them out (or the burned user took them out). That wiki, http://de.wikipedia.org, whitelisted the entire site, and experienced no linkspam as a result. The blacklisting process is considering multiple additions of links to a site as by definition linkspam, and an editor who does this, no matter how reasonable the edits are, is treated as a spammer. That's abusive. And it has damaged the project.

I'm going to continue to document what happened. The case page has, so far, not examined more than two wikis; what seriously triggered the meta blacklisting was additions to many wikis, in many languages. I fully understand why linkspam was suspected, possibly sufficiently to justify blacklisting. However, editing to remove appropriate links, without a proper content consensus, was, in fact, vandalism, even though not so intended. Lyrikline.org is a notable web site, with material in many, many languages, see the article, Lyrikline.org. That links were added in many languages was very much to be expected, once someone realized that it could be appropriate to add them to articles on poets. Quite simply, Misarxist, you are not the only one to notice the usefulness of lyrikline.org, quite a few others have as well. They've asked for whitelisting a number of times, or for delisting. And it has been denied. Why? The major response has been to point to the original addition of links, as if the number of links was, all by itself, overwhelming proof of the necessity of blacklisting.

This is a serious error and a violation of blacklist guidelines, and it appears to represent a consensus of the active blacklisters. Cause for initial, perhaps "emergency" blacklisting has been confused with cause for continued blacklisting. This is the kind of thing that might end up at ArbComm. But I'm taking it one step at a time, hence the process at User talk:Abd/Blacklist. I'm first starting to find out what the consensus is, what I think would be sustained on broader examination, and what I think would not.

There was, in fact, no emergency. When warned, Lyrik immediately stopped. Blacklist guidelines suggest that blacklisting not be used unless lesser measures failed. Lesser measures didn't fail, but the process appears to have assumed that they would. After all, spammers don't give up, right? Spammers also argue that the links they added were legitimate. Spammers also use IP addresses to edit. Etc.

(In fact, the antispammers also edit using IP, because it's cumbersome to register on all the wikis. Lyrik wasn't going to register on a wiki just to add two links to articles on poets.) --Abd (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the stupid 'crusade' comment. Sorry this is hurried, about to go to bed: Agree with the lyric thing, just I would prefer to call it a mistake & assume it would be better just to ask that the case be re-assessed on it's merits, as you say other people disagreed with that one, rather than going into the details of how the mistake happened. (Have asked someone on meta for clarification about the copyright thing, I don't think that holds water.)--Misarxist (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Misarxist, is that there are many such cases. I don't know how many, but the existing blacklist process is a setup for them to occur. Yes, I'd call it a mistake. But it's a mistake that is being repeated. And dealing with each individual mistake, when there is no process for doing so efficiently, will guarantee that mistakes will continue to be made. Now, it isn't exactly the blacklisting process that is the major problem, though there should be, perhaps, some tweaks to it to lessen damage. The problem is the delisting and whitelisting process, where the same administrators whose focus is preventing linkspam are making content decisions on behalf of the whole project (on meta, for every WMF wiki), with very low participation from anyone else. Those decisions are being made, often, with an argument that the blacklisting was legitimate; but the blacklisting process only looks, pretty much, at numbers of links added and how many editors are adding them and (for meta) on how many wikis. It's become very clear that actual content, actual appropriateness, isn't even being considered, until perhaps later, when someone asks for delisting. There is where the copyright issue was brought up, it wasn't an issue at all in the original blacklisting. And I've seen the same done with another listing: lenr-canr.org. Totally spurious, assumption of copyright violation even if such an assumption is preposterous for a highly visible, highly notable web site. In the case of lyrikline.org, if I'm correct, most or all material is submitted by the authors, plus being reviewed for acceptability and notability by the editors. In the case of lenr-canr.org, the site is an on-line library, with a complete bibliography on the topic of interest (low energy nuclear reactions or chemically assisted nuclear reactions, popularly known as Cold fusion, plus hosted copies of documents, where the site has been able to obtain permission from authors and publishers. Copyright violation was asserted over and over, but the only evidence of any weight at all was JzG's claim that he once asked for permission from elsevier, and it was denied (and perhaps the response was, from someone there, "we don't do that."). However, lenr-canr.org only hosts about one-third of the documents in the bibliography, and the site owner has said over and over, "I'd love to host them all, if only I could get permission."

No, the copyvio argument is CYA. I.e., a justification for continuing an action that was not based on it. In any case, linking unknowingly and without gross negligence to copyright violating material isn't a violation of copyright law. It's only willful linking that is illegal. Good thing. The guidelines say that occasional existence of copyvio material on a site should not prevent linking to it, it is only massive or blatant copyvio in the linked material that would be a problem. So the Goethe-Institut and the Berlin regional library and the former president, now vice-president of the Bundestag and UNESCO are supporting a violating site? Hardly likely, I'd say! --Abd (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One more time...

...with feeling. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The talk page appears never to have been created. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. This one also appears to have no talk page. Incidentally, are you finished with any of the ones that I've undeleted for you? All of your undeletion requests have been individually reasonable, but userspace isn't for creating private Deletionpedias and I'd feel better about these restorations if they were only sitting there for as long as you were actively using them for something. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not finished with any of them that are still in my user space. Where there was a claim of spamvertising, I blanked the page, pending work on it, so that it wouldn't be indexed, etc. The kind of work I'm doing takes time, there are initiatives on many fronts. The pages are, in some cases, evidence for a report on how the blacklisting process works. Here is a status report:

User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments contains a lot of sourced detail on calorimetry and problems with it. My opinion is that consensus in the article itself will ultimately settle on a subarticle, because there is too much in reliable source and reasonable to include in the project, for the one article to support. I'm working on the cold fusion article in a number of ways, and will eventually get to the material in that article.

• Lyrikline.org was cleaned up and moved back into article space, this had been permitted by Hu12, the deleting admin, and he helped by whitelisting the link to the web site.

• User:Abd/TurnKey Linux is very current, I'm still figuring out if there is anything to do with it. Largely, I'm trying to rescue the author, who was rather roundly abused; however, he raised an important issue, which was drowned in the shouting: what are notability standards for articles on Open Source software? He pointed out that many, maybe most, articles in the field are as poorly sourced, in terms of general purpose RS, as was his. I don't think this article will need to be around long. My discussion with the author seems to have calmed him down and has led him to think that maybe not all is doom and gloom here, he seems to have understood my description of Wikipedia process. I hope I'm not leading him down the rosy path!

• User:Abd/ReadyLinks may have been improperly speedied. It was blacklisted, since last May, caught by a regex error. When someone, possibly someone affiliated with the company, requested whitelisting, so that links in the article could be fixed, the article was immediately deleted and the request denied. It was never spammed. I looked at the article in the google cache, and while it certainly wasn't a paragon of good content, it also had a little substance, and I found a reliable source that might be usable. While speedy deletion may have been appropriate, the tag appeared within minutes after the whitelisting was requested, and the article was then, within minutes, deleted. There wasn't any opportunity at all for anyone to request hang-on. While the article may indeed have been written by someone at the company, and there is a user who edited it, User:Readylinks, thus probable COI, I'm not convinced that an article which had been standing since 2006 should just disappear like that without at least some opportunity for editors to find independent sources. Beetstra suggested I could go to DRV. Sure. Weird. Is there a dispute? I don't know yet! It's deleted, undeletion was denied, my concern about the possibly punitive aspect of the deletion isn't relevant to the article's existence, so I'm certainly not ready to go to DRV! I'm stubbing the article, I'll see what I can find source for and consider, then, requesting that Hu12 permit return to article space. If not, then there would be DRV, of course. I won't even ask Hu12 if I don't think there is a chance of success at DRV.

• There are some older ones I should look at. I will. MKR (programming language), for example, is waiting for the author to find more sources. That could take quite a while. This was a case of abusive deletion process, but I considered it would have been disruptive to go to DRV. (It was AfD'd, survived, and was nominated the next day by ... a User:Fredrick day sock. An admin speedy closed, Fd reverted him, so he went, properly, to AN/I. Which is broken. Instead of another admin simply and quickly confirming the obvious, the article's notability became a subject of debate. Wrong forum! But in all the shouting, people piled in to !vote in the AfD, it seems to have attracted every deletionist in the place, and it was, of course, impossible to close it then. Some very long time wikipedians, from the very early days, voted to keep.... but out of personal knowledge, they knew the language, it's important, ... but only a little reliable source in the traditional sense. The field is almost entirely on the internet, discussion groups, etc. I found some reliable source, in fact. But there was so much shouting ... the process folks vs. the screw-process folks. Avoiding abusive renomination: wikilawyering! The chances of getting a good decision in that environment: low. As I recall, the !vote was about even. There wasn't any consensus for deletion. But there also wasn't any consensus for Keep. The admin made his own decision, to Delete. I'm pretty sure that DRV would simply have repeated the mess. So ... the author, pretty badly burned, was grateful that I offered to help him by having the article userfied and working with him on sourcing. I can't do much of the actual research, he knows the people in the field. I should contact him to see if he ever came up with anything. There were tantalizing possibilities.... There were also other users who offered to help, I should contact them..... too many irons in the fire, perhaps. That's the story of my life. Seven kids, with the first five, I had five teenagers at once. Now I have a five-year old and a seven-year old, and I'm 64 years old. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Anyway, thanks for the help. One of the reasons it goes slowly is that I'm not directly and immediately and urgently confronting issues that I find. I'm developing relationships with some of the involved people. But some of the blacklisters are touchy! I've had some off-wiki email with an admin who has served in some similar areas, and he described how one becomes suspicious of everything, it is easy to burn out. I see incivility as common, among those working to deal with spam. It's not necessary to be uncivil to deal effectively with spam! But it's sure easy to go there! And the attitudes that develop, that involve images of battle (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, with the big guns blazing, and User:MER-C, with the nuclear detonation), talk about WP:BATTLE, cause collateral damage, as a user intending nothing but the improvement of the project gets called "spammer," is indef blocked without warning, on totally spurious grounds, and the web site which he thought would be so useful is blacklisted, and the article he created, on a site which has won major awards, is deleted. And, in fact, the only project which has whitelisted, has plenty of these links, just like what he was inserting. No abuse, apparently, they've been watching for it. There was practically no editorial opposition to these links. It was pure process run amok: user adds a lot of links to a web site, that is, by definition, for them, linkspamming, and leads to immediate blacklisting, and no questions at all are asked about the content. They don't care if the articles are all the same kind of article (in this case, poets) and probably the link is appropriate for every poet with a page at the web site, at least this could be argued. Let's see, we have an article now, let me look it up .... On its pages one can browse through and listen to about 4,700 poems by 470 poets in 49 languages. The site has a biblography and a biography for each poet, plus audio contributed by the poet, with the text in the original language and translated into certain other languages, which can be read in parallel, I think.

Now, perhaps blacklisting was appropriate, to slow things down. I can accept that argument. Problem is, when delisting was requested, the original additions, by now a year old, are cited as reasons to keep the site blacklisted. And when whitelisting is requested, it is denied as "unnecessary," with statements that show a belief that external links are basically undesirable. Yet lyrikline.org, for articles on hosted poets -- where it would be reliable source for biography, etc., it's edited and responsible and does not accept contributions automatically -- meets the description of desirable external links in WP:EXT, high-quality content which is useful but which can't be brought onto Wikipedia. I've concluded that the basic structural problem is that blacklisting should be separated from delisting and whitelisting, the same set of admins shouldn't be running both. Blacklisting was not intended to be used the way it's being used, they aren't following the guidelines, and that's openly acknowledged by them as a good thing. But they don't change the guidelines to reflect actual practice, and I've got a strong suspicion that this is because they know what would happen. The community would not accept what they are doing.

When I started working on this, I was warned about eating worms. I got private comments from admins that this was going to be difficult. Actually, so far, it hasn't been. That's because I'm not screaming "cabal," I'm not going to DRV, I'm not going to AN or AN/I, I'm just gathering evidence and examples and trying to clean up a tiny fraction of the messes being created.

Note that there being a big mess doesn't mean that the blacklisting itself is wrong, only that the mechanisms for fixing errors either don't exist or are broken. What's needed may be a very small tweak. This is not about blaming the volunteers who work hard to protect Wikipedia from spam and other inappropriate contgent. In fact, if I do my work right, it will get a little easier. But they don't know that yet. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've no desire to involve myself in blacklist wars, and as long as you tell me that it's all still serving a purpose I'll take your word for it. I'm happy to do more undeletions, too. But if you'd tag them for speedying (or just let me know) when you are done with them, I'd appreciate it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to stop the blacklist wars, by the way. Yes, I'll tag them when done. What tag should I use for a deleted article that was userified? Shouldn't they be moved back to article space before being deleted, so that the history is sitting in the right place? Don't know, just asking.... --Abd (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist

Go for it like many admin task pages there are a number regulars, the lower the volume of traffic the lower the number of people who maintain it. Its been a while since I had any involvement with the page, the RWW just caught my eye. All I did was answer questions about the original posting, something I had nothing to do with but it was glaring to see that supporters for removal had expressed their inability to see why it was listed. That particular discussion was a problem in that because its a notable site it cant have been spammed was the arguments put forward, given that it was nommed and list the editor shouldnt have declined the request, like wise with questions unanswered and acknowldged canvassing the site shouldnt have been delisted based on the numbers. These occur because the process problems arent being addressed, of all the admin actions this requires a good deal of time spent chasing down holes, many of which are in deleted contributions. How much info do we really want to make public about how things were detected to me an indepth review while necessary can also make the job of avoidance easier in the future. RWW may have not been a RS when it was listed but it in some cases it can be considered one now, I'm just watching for wholesale abuse what happens after that will depend on the methods being used.

I think what will help these processes is for a guide on how to discuss listings/removals like Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. This maybe the best initial approach as it can be tweaked easiy while getting use, also the process for listing and removal should have some basic notification templates created so as to ensure discussion, and an ettiquette guide. This should also help to expand the pool of regulars at the table so as to avoid COI on actions.Gnangarra 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting my Talk page, welcome. Sure, there are lots of misconceptions out there. As to canvassing, however, remember, the numbers don't count, it's the arguments. (My position is that canvassing, in itself, shouldn't be a problem. Disruption is disruption, though. Canvassing that brings in hosts of "me too" comments from random editors gunks up a discussion; but in the case of the blacklist talk pages, as you know, there is usually low participation, with most comments coming from editors very involved with the blacklisting process and perhaps attempting to defend it. That is just as much of a problem in the opposite direction). As was noted, if there is a problem with the site, relisting is simple. My comment, the one that Hu12 removed but that is now restored with his permission, and overwhelming consensus at AN/I, pointed out that the original reasons for blacklisting were moot. All that should matter with a delisting request is whether continued listing is needed. And if it is, then reference should be made to the whitelist pages, and what I've found frustrating is that whitelist requests are met with "but it was properly blacklisted." So? And then the response goes on with "And it isn't needed." I.e., the sky will not fall if the link isn't used? But will the sky fall if a specific link is whitelisted? How many links are added every day that are quite inappropriate, and undetected, and how many possibly inappropriate listings would be added through an easy whitelisting process? I think we should consider reducing the protection level of the whitelist page to semi; it would be easy enough to watch that page to remove clearly inappropriate additions (and to block apparent spam accounts).

If the delisting and whitelisting processes were easier, then it would be easier to blacklist without damage. And there would be much less damage to Wikipedia's reputation, both the obvious damage represented by that blog description of the blacklisting, and the more subtle and pernicious damage represented by burned users such as User:Lyriker. See User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for the sad story. This editor was clearly beginning to work hard to improve the project, world-wide, as he saw it. He needed nothing more than a little guidance as to how to add so many links without disruption. What did he get? Indef blocked by Hu12, for totally spurious reasons, a mere appearance that disappears with only a little thought and understanding. The article he gave us on Lyrikline.org deleted as promotional advertising, which it was not. And many hours of work reversed rapidly without any consideration of whether or not the links were appropriate. What would we call massive, possibly bot-assisted, removal of content, not all coming from one editor, and arguably positive contributions?

I don't know about you, but if it is done without discussion relating to content, I'd call it "vandalism." Blacklisting can be seen as an emergency measure, to stop the addition of possibly inappropriate links. But removal is another matter, and should be done more carefully. In the case of lyrikline links, they'd been standing for a time, there was no emergency. The worst damage done would have been some links that blacklist editors might consider "unnecessary," persisting for a little while until there could be some discussion. In this case, an appropriate place for discussion might have been WP:WikiProject Poetry, or on a few Talk pages for affected articles, or a bot-added note to all articles where removal might be an issue. Instead, we had mass removal, massively cross-wiki, by IP editors.

Anyway, I don't think it will be difficult to fix, it simply has needed some attention, and I hope you will watch and/or contribute to User:Abd/Blacklist and related pages linked from there. If there are any errors in the reports, please, fix them. If my opinions are based on ignorance of how the blacklist operates or its needs, please advise me. It's a shame that Hu12 seems to have responded with hostility. I wasn't going after him, I was merely trying to clean up, on occasion, some possible messes that he left behind. He's done a lot of work, a few errors would be expected. However, the more I've looked, I've begun to expect that it wasn't just a few. There may be much more extensive cleanup necessary. (Good delisting and whitelisting process makes it unnecessary to focus on possible problems specifically with his blacklisting actions, but it might be a good idea to look for editors blocked by him contrary to block policy, or speedy deletions that weren't appropriate as to content, but were retaliatory for alleged linkspam, and start to undo these. I'll start with User:Lyriker. There is absolutely no reason why he should have been blocked. He responded to warnings and stopped adding links. His user name and his edit history on de.wikipedia (de user Lyrik) simply means "Poet," showing an interest in poetry. He started editing as IP (stable) and added links back in 2006, he thought what he was doing was helpful, and, suddenly, Wham! Indef blocked, article deleted, global blacklisting of possibly the best poetry web site on the net, see the article, and most of his work undone in a very short time. He should get a barnstar, not an indef block record. So I'll take this one to AN, I suppose. Not an emergency, but important, he still edits IP on odd occasions on de, though he was never blocked there.

The stock answer given to web site managers, "we don't consider requests from site owners," leaves me wondering, "Why not?" Who is we? True spammers are unlikely to bother, and the usage of "we" by Hu12 (and perhaps others) seems to imagine a tight group of admins who are in control, and who don't have time for it. But any admin can delist, it's just the removal of a line in the list page, and any editor could suggest it to any admin, and it isn't clear that discussion of a removal is even necessary. (If links can be added without discussion, as they have been, and has been accepted by blacklist admins when it's been pointed out, why not delisting?). If there is a page for IP editors, new accounts, and others, to request delisting or whitelisting, or, more likely, to assist them in finding a user -- does not have to be an administrator -- to request delisting, having reviewed their request and being in support, then "we" can consider such requests. This particular request was made by the site owner. And it was quite worthy of consideration. I'm afraid Hu12 shot himself in the foot. If he'd not declined the request for ReadWriteWeb, but simply let it sit, the problems with his original listing might never have come to light. If he'd not removed my harmless (at worst) comment, and then edit warred over it, there would still have been some continued examination of the case on User:Abd/Blacklist/readwriteweb.com, but no egg all over his face in public as happened at AN/I. It's the battlefield mentality, I'm afraid. Another admin who worked RCP explained to me how, after doing it for a while, it seemed like there was a spammer, POV-pusher, or vandal underneath every edit, and he became very revert-happy. Take that, Enemies of All that is Good and Reliably Sourced! --Abd (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, would you please suggest one (1) place (it could be here) where there is talk-page-style discussion of the blacklist/whitelist processes that I could get involved in, preferably some sort of centralized discussion? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a place, really, the Talk pages are being used for dealing with the blacklist activity. WP:WikiProject Spam is oriented toward blacklisting, and even suggests that AGF may have to go. The MediaWiki pages are all working pages and general discussion isn't welcome there. There definitely should be a guideline, but it's grown like Topsy, I think. I'm soliciting comment and help with User:Abd/Blacklist and subpages, the Talk page there is quite open. My goal with the user pages is to develop a report on recommendations to deal with the issues I've found. There are subpages with evidence regarding specific blacklisting cases, the one I've put the most attention into is User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org, and there is a Talk page attached, of course. --Abd (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looks as if User talk:Abd/Blacklist is the discussion I was looking for. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12

Hi, the comments about Hu12's bereavement relate to a previous incident when he failed to communicate with editors about his blacklisting decisions. It was raised in that thread by an admin who presented a highly misleading summary of the events, apparently with the aim of undermining my (originally very small) input to the current thread. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice, Duncan, is to let it go. It's actually irrelevant. (For others, this is with reference to a report on AN/I, one of my very rare filings there, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive_removal_of_discussion_by_Hu12_on_MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist.)

I should explain this a bit. In dealing with these blacklistings over the last few weeks, I've seen barrages of arguments presented, which arguments include "highly misleading summaries of events." Often one set of events are conflated with others, assumptions are made -- and not of good faith! -- and, in the other direction, assumptions are made defending administrative actions that simply fly in the face of the facts. Everyone can make mistakes. It's great that we defend each other, but defending the mistakes of friends is a Bad Idea, it can actually harm them seriously. Friends of Physchim62 and User:Tango defended them, and this may have encouraged them to "stick to their guns," when they had actually blown it, violated basic standards for administrators (use of tools when involved), and the result was a couple of bitter ex-administrators. True friends, in my opinion, tell you when you've made a mistake. In any case, an aim of undermining your input would be close to bad faith, if not actually there. On the other hand, my experience and expectation, the admin probably believed his or her own "highly misleading summary." Hence, to that admin, the admin was simply countering your "bad arguments" with the "Truth"(TM). People who deliberately lie in such complex ways are not very common. Attack someone, they will defend themselves and may play fast an loose with the truth. But it's rather silly on a wiki where the History is generally quite open. Still, some do it, and often the true history is lost in the noise. And then comes along someone like me who doesn't trust his own memory and opinions and who will actually look at those old conversations....

Anyway, thanks for dropping by, welcome any time. Have some tea or coffee. Cream?

Look, if Hu12 is not communicating about blacklisting decisions, they can and perhaps should be undone. That's all. But for some odd reason, and with rare exceptions, no matter how much evidence is presented that a blacklisting wasn't necessary, the conclusion seems to be that delisting isn't necessary. Maybe with the work invested in finding the links and removing them, they don't want it wasted? So when I encountered this situation, and realized the dimensions of it, I began to look around and to gather evidence, not to scream and yell. However, along the way, I found stuff. The block of User:Lyriker, for example. Why was this user blocked? Why was Lyrikline.org deleted?

Just the other day, I found a whitelist request for ready-links.com. Sounds like some spam web site, right? Not. Company makes networking equipment. Within minutes of the whitelist request, from a clueless SPA quite possibly connected with the company, the article on the company, ReadyLinks which had been around for years (and which was the fluff that used to be more common, what we might expect would be created by someone from the company who didn't have the foggiest), was tagged for speedy deletion and was actually deleted by, guess who? This SPA had come because the article contained blacklisted links and thus could not be edited, and so he was asking for help. Whack!

Now, why was ready-links.com blacklisted? Well, Hu12 was dealing with a report, last year, on a massive user page linkspammer. (I appreciate what these people do, and it's unfortunate that a couple of the involved admins seem to think that I'm attacking them and the process, I hope they will get over that.) One of the spammed URLs was links.links.com. Hu12 added the regex code \blinks\.com\b, if I remember it right, which will catch links.com but also sites with [anything]-links.com. I saw this in another report on the page, where we whitelisted such a similar site because of the error. But it really was an error, not merely a not-ideal expression. The site to be blacklisted wasn't links.com, it was links.links.com. That site is dead, probably removed by links.com as a spam site. The whole listing should just be removed, it's doing no good, and it is doing some harm. I've userfied the article at User:Abd/ReadyLinks so it can be cleaned up, and I'll move it back when appropriate, and then let normal process take over. I don't think it was a proper speedy candidate, but I'm also not sure of its notability. (I'm an inclusionist, and would probably want to include it with respect to anything that could be verified, but that's another matter.)

There will be a report on this particular incident at User:Abd/Blacklist/ready-links.com, joining other reports that will be detail pages for an overall report on the blacklisting situation, with recommendations as to how to fix it. This will be my report, I'll be personally responsible for it, that's why it's in my user space, it is not a totally open community process, though at the outset, everyone is invited to help. Whatever consensus appears there binds nobody, makes no decisions, and only advises those who choose to be advised by it. The report will then, perhaps, become a basis to suggest edits to the relevant guidelines, or, if that's resisted inappropriately, an RfC or further process.

Until I started this, there were only isolated anecdotes; many users (and administrators) reported to me problems with the blacklists, but it was all too diffuse. By beginning to compile this, by discussing it with administrators involved in the blacklisting (and at least three have been reasonably friendly and cooperative), I've been able to come to an understanding of how we might proceed, and it is really pretty simple: separate the blacklisting and delisting/whitelisting processes. Consider it conflict of interest for an admin to work heavily blacklisting sites and then for the same admin to deny delisting requests. This is a little tighter than present COI standards, which would only prevent -- if applied, they weren't being applied -- the same admin from blacklisting a particular site and then denying delisting for the same site. The blacklisters are specialized, they use special tools, their process is arcane and relatively difficult to penetrate. And then when someone requests delisting, they simply toss a pile of nearly incomprehensible evidence, typically having nothing to do with content, on the editor's head, and say, "See?" No, they shouldn't be handling delisting at all, unless it's just to review consensus from another page and implement it, or to grant applications made personally to them as a blacklisting admin. (And when they deny such, they would properly refer the editor to the open process, without prejudice.)

The objection has been made (showing that the proposal hasn't been understood) that there aren't enough administrators to handle the existing load, already, but that assumes that delisting must be expeditious. It should be simple, and reasonably quick, but quick and almost automatic No isn't very useful. Rather, let the blacklisters handle blacklisting, and only require certain standards for that, which should be better documented, not to remove WP:IAR flexibility, but to simplify decision-making for the bulk of cases, and avoid contention and conflict. Let blacklisting be relatively easy, but let it involve no content decisions, unless they are obvious and clearly non-contentious ones. Someone is adding 20 links an hour. Blacklist immediately, no fuss, and report next. Don't call the editor a spammer, unless it is totally blatant (which does require consideration of content), but warn the editor that massive addition of links without established consensus could result in a block. And if the editor continues, block the editor briefly, with very polite apologies for the inconvenience and instructions on how to appeal. Let the blacklist notice give better instructions as to how to appeal a blacklisting, and make it easy, but at the same time, make it efficient. Don't require administrators to make the closing decisions, rather, let experienced editors do it (same as actually can be done with AfDs for Keep closes, User:Kim Bruning showed me that trick.) By offloading delisting requests from the blacklisters, they can be freer to work on their specialty, but then the peculiar POV that arises among those who see way too much spam -- many have reported this to me who have been there, done that -- isn't involved in making content decisions.

The delisting and whitelisting pages would be semiprotected. There would be instructions for IP and new editors how to find an autoconfirmed editor to help them by making the request on their behalf (i.e., by convincing the regular editor that something should be done). Thus we start to use the distributed power of the community to better deal with the issue. And if there aren't enough volunteers there, well, stuff doesn't happen. *It doesn't stop the blacklisters*. And nobody can blame them, in such a case. They'd be doing their job, which would be a bit better defined.

More tea or coffee? Need to get home? Or can you stay a while? Any time, come by. Sorry if I talked your ear off, but, I assure you, I'll listen to whatever you say in reply. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, just so long as you know that you will be personally attacked and lied about by certain admins if you do question what they or certain others do - but I think you realised that long ago! Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find it fascinating, I first observed this as a participant and conference moderator on the The WELL in roughly 1987: everything was recorded. It should be quite difficult to lie about what people have done. But some do it anyway, and, what's amazing, they get away with it, because most people won't look! It takes patient deconstruction and careful examination of each statement, in a organized way, to get beyond this, unless, I suppose, one is, oneself, a genius at manipulating how people think. Which is exactly what I don't want to do. Now, given this phenomenon, there is a parallel realization. Given that others are so easily deceived by what they expect and what they want to see (i.e, their friend is right, their enemy is wrong), it can follow that the "liars" are themselves deceived. That is, they are simply remembering selectively what happened, or mistaking their impressions for their experience. Joe wrote "X" is replaced with "Joe wrote a nasty insult." That is, the emotional effect is substituted for the accurate memory of experience, and then detailed memory is altered to match the emotional effect. Occasionally, I've seen people actually look back and the record and say, "That's not how I remembered it, I'm embarrassed at what I said about it." But it's rare.

The AN/I report on JzG has been rapidly closed without the issue raised being addressed. It was about edit warring, period. Content wasn't the issue, and I did not go there to seek support for a content position, nor did I intend -- nor did I -- to revert further no matter what. However, editors saw the report as being, not about edit warring, but about trying to get admin support for a content position, which, of course, would be reprehensible (to me, as it was for others). Spartaz closed with a comment that showed he fell for the content distraction. Which left the question, "Is it legitimate and acceptable to push a content position with six removals of the same content, unsupported by any other editor, against multiple editors asserting a different position." I know the answer from policy. It isn't. So, the way I put it toward the end, "Does JzG have a Get Out of Jail Free Card, or should we MfD WP:EDITWAR or is what he did not edit warring?" Remarkably, JzG asserted that what I did was edit warring, though I'd reverted twice in about two weeks, whereas he removed the content six times, including 3 removals in one day. I warned him at four removals, he reverted again and I went to AN/I, and then he reverted again while the discussion was under way.

He *does* have a Get Out of Jail Free card. I'm positive that if I did this, I'd be blocked in a flash. So would almost every editor. However, see, WP:DR has not been exhausted. The next step is a little more difficult: is there another editor who would attempt to resolve this dispute and who, if it fails, would cosponsor an RfC? I know admins who have a very low opinion of JzG's behavior, but they don't want to get involved, and I don't blame them. He's played that GOOJF card successfully many times. He knows how to distract, in a crowd. And, again, I don't have the opinion that he's being deliberately deceptive.

If this gets to ArbComm, though, it won't go as he might expect. He has treated his last foray before ArbComm, it's mentioned in the present AN/I report that I filed, as some kind of "victory," when, in fact, ArbComm more or less chastised him for premature filing of a request, plus a number of editors chided him for use of tools while involved. Respected editors.

By the way, I have a page, User:Abd/Notices where I post occasional pointers to what I think are significant activities. I've suggested to users interested in what I'm doing to watch that page. It has a detached, redirected Talk page, so, if it works properly and someone doesn't interfere with it, only posts to that page will show up in a watchlist, and those are only to be made by me. (All other posts to that page should be reverted.) Watching my contributions would drive almost anyone nuts. My Talk page is bad enough. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with JzG, again

I see JzG is now treating you the same way he treats me, even though you've avoided some of the excesses of my own style, and even taken me to task a bit for them. Of course, Guy is always right about everything, everywhere, all of the time, and no discussion is ever needed; insisting on conducting a discussion about any of the things Guy is always right about is evidence you're a troll, and the proper response is to throw out the discussion with the rest of the trash. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A record is accumulating. Let's put it this way: I'd agree that it looks like what you say. And I could support that with diffs. And I just might need to do that. It depends on whether or not anyone else has the fortitude to participate, because, at this point, if I proceed alone, I'd be dead meat. And, in fact, I'd deserve it. See, there is this little thing called "consensus," and it begins with two people. Insisting on discussing a thing in a deliberative assembly, when there is no second, will get you tossed out. As, again, it should.

Is there a second?

If not, the motion fails for lack of a second.

Dan, you warned me at the outset that I'd be learning to eat worms, or something like that. It's not true, actually, for I have taken WP:DGAF to heart, and don't expect rational response from crowds. And I know how to move beyond that, in fact, but it takes time.

Let me put it this way. The last ArbComm election put two of the best editors I've known on ArbComm. I've consulted privately with them before the election, and I know how they think, and it is deep and they do understand what is going on. I have not and will not call upon them, but I also have some idea of what will happen if matters go to ArbComm. And if it doesn't, well, WP:DGAF doesn't have an expiration date. And I have no opinion that I'm better off editing Wikipedia than not. I'm here to improve the project, but if the project doesn't want me, well, it won't be like I've never experienced that before. I will say this, though. I've been cast out more than once, from organizations, a nonprofit board, and mailing lists. And in every case, those projects failed. It wasn't that I was essential, it is that what cast me out was destructive or created rigidity (alternate dangers). Socrates. User:Abd/Rule 0. Societies that can't tolerate people like me cannot change, cannot adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. Wikipedia is at a dangerous turning point; it's become very conservative, even small changes that clearly have the potential to solve major problems are strongly resisted, such as Flagged Revisions. Delegable proxy would allow, if implemented -- and it can be done one person at a time, without any change to policies or procedures until and unless there is consensus to make the change -- intelligent and filtered structure to arise that would balance the participation bias that afflicts our process, that would allow rapid response with consensus on a large scale. For starters, it would be trivial, if proxy designations became routine, to form a Wikipedia Assembly, which a number of members of ArbComm have seen as necessary to deal with content issues and to otherwise form a way for the community to deliberate. DP would allow a standing assembly to be created without elections and with maximized representation.

But the editor who proposed it was promptly blocked for disruption. Now, he was erratic, for sure, given to impulsive action. But, in fact, it's people like him (probably with ADHD) who have the capacity to see beyond the standard limits. He got it, or, more accurately, he got pieces of it. Proxies in the context of Wikipedia would not have "voting rights." They would not be voting on behalf of people who have named them. But if they do participate in some process, and the !vote, it becomes possible to estimate the "extended support" for a position; this assumes that people name as proxy someone they trust.

There is an obvious objection: sock puppets. Except my friend proved that this objection was false. When he named me as his proxy, both of us were immediately the subject of an SSP report and were checkusered. It was preposterous, actually, but this is the fact: a sock puppet would never name the puppet master. For the sock and master to be directly and easily connected is the last thing a puppet master wants. Like a big red flag. Suspect something is off about a sock account? Look first at the proxy of the sock. Or vice versa (i.e, the client of the sock). Further, since we don't !vote, in fact, numbers don't count unless an analyst wants to look at them, multiplying sock puppets doesn't multiply cogent arguments. It would just create "me too" !votes, and I think they would stand out like a sore thumb. I'm sure small numbers would happen, but large-scale manipulation, not. However, WP:PRX wasn't about setting up some binding system, or even anything that required people who did not participate to do anything, nor would it have deprived anyone of participation rights. It simply would have set up a proxy table and structure.

And this is the secret, right here for everyone to read: it doesn't need community approval, and there is no way for the community to prevent it or stop it. The only thing that prevents it is that people don't do it. They don't believe it will do any good, so they don't do anything toward creating the structure. Which would, if needed, be created off-wiki. It already exists informally.

I've been working on this since the 1980s. I know what the obstacles are. It will simply take time, and it doesn't depend on me. The structural concept was invented in about a half-dozen different places around the world, at roughly the same time. I've got a limited lifespan, and I have prostate cancer, though it is stage I and I may never seen symptoms before I die, i.e, I'm quite likely to die from other causes instead of that. And I think I'm likely to see the first applications before I move on, because I know how it works, how to get there, and see that happening, one piece at a time. Will it arrive in time to help Wikipedia? That I don't know. I just happen to be here now, and I do what I can. Recent changes is fun. Dealing with adminicrap isn't, I do that because once I see something that others don't see -- because it's hard to see this stuff, it takes lots of time and careful research -- I'm obligated, it's a basic principle of Islam and, yes, the vandal is right. I'm a Muslim. He adds other colorful words, but he's at least half-right.

(Muslim? What's that? Well, look into the word and the origin and it means someone who surrenders to Truth no matter what the personal opinion or affiliation is. It means believing that one does not own the Truth, the situation is the reverse, and Abd means "slave." If I think that my opinion is "the Truth"(TM), I've got it all backwards. I *hope* my opinion is affected by the Truth, but I also know that I'm a human being and we have, shall we say, tendencies toward blindness, when it comes to our own shortcomings. Now, can you perhaps understand why I'd be interested in NPOV? NPOV isn't my opinion, I don't own it and can't claim it, and the way I recognize it is through consensus. Basic foundation of Islamic law, the part that most non-Muslims and a whole boatload of Muslims don't know about Islam: consensus is the foundation of sound practice. Not doctrine, rules, abstractions. Agreement, and especially the agreement of the informed.)

Ahem, where were we? Thanks for dropping by. Did I offer you any tea or coffee? Because of the prostate cancer, I only have half-and-half and heavy cream here. I do have some sugar, though, because my kids don't abstain from it, and I have sucralose, what's your pleasure. Wikipedia? I wouldn't worry about it. The only way I can be hurt by it is if I obsess about it, spend too much time here, and neglect my kids, who do need me. I should put up some pictures. Chinese daughter, 7 years old. Ethiopian daughter, 5 years old. I also have five grown children and five grandchildren who are, all but one, older than my youngest daughters.

There is a scene at the end of Blade Runner where the android who is dying tells about what he has seen. That's how I feel; not about dying, but about living. If I could tell you what I've seen.... in fact, though, I can't. You have to see it for yourself, that's what we are here for.--Abd (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith? Your proxy voting system reminds me of the "Gallatinist" assembly that exists in the alternate universe of that book, as the central assembly of the vestigial government that still exists in a mostly anarcho-capitalist world; it's the manner in which the society takes collective action on the extremely rare occasions when such is necessary. As for your being a Muslim... well, you certainly seem to have a very different attitude from some of your co-religionists, whose adherence to absolute rules is such that they demand death for those who make the most minor transgressions. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, haven't read it, but it's been pointed out to me that there are some similar concepts there. The people who have been most receptive to the delegable proxy concepts have typically been libertarians; my complete concept is called FA/DP, i.e., Free Associations with Delegable Proxy. FAs are purely voluntary organizations that do not centralize power *at all*. Example is Alcoholics Anonymous, founded and designed largely by Bill Wilson, who studied the matter and figured out how to create a massively decentralized organization that was nevertheless coherent, and which was astonishingly successful, where many prior efforts had failed. Add DP to this, and the large-scale part of it becomes self-organizing and efficient. AA does so little on a large scale that a supermajority-elected delegate assembly worked well enough. Delegable proxy resembles Asset voting, which was first described by Lewis Carroll in something like 1884. Wikipedia could use Asset Voting if it wanted to create a peer assembly, where every member has the same voting power, and where there aren't ordinary elections, i.e., representation through contest, but rather though choice and cooperation. (If there are fifty seats, and your "faction" has only 1% of the vote, you've got to make some compromise, but *you* make it, not some majority vote. I.e., you choose whom to cooperate with.) Then, take an Asset Assembly, *and allow direct voting.* To do this, votes must be known, it can't be done with secret ballot, at least not totally. Whenever someone votes directly, this vote is subtracted, proportionally, from the votes of the seat holder who was carrying the vote of the person. In a secret ballot system there are two layers: people vote secretly for "candidates," and then the candidates become electors, holding the votes of so many people who voted for them, and the candidates then treat these votes as "their personal property," in Carroll's language, and reassign them to create seats. Because these electors are public voters, they can then vote directly in final decisions if they wish to. If they choose well, they usually won't have to! Those who didn't declare themselves as candidates and therefore didn't get any votes can't recast their votes until the next general election. In a relatively open and free system, anyone can declare themselves as a candidate and vote for themselves and thus become an elector who can then vote publicly. (They can then reassign their votes as any candidate can, but might retain the right to vote directly when they choose to do so.)

But, I think this idea/principle is original with me: deliberation and voting are separated. The problem of scale is one of deliberation, which breaks down when the scale is large. If deliberation is public, though, the arguments against direct democracy fail, largely, because those who vote directly can become as informed as they choose. What they can't do, if they don't hold a seat, is *deliberate,* i.e., take up everyone's time or fill up the record with their reams of text like I do. That's where direct democracy becomes a problem, the problem isn't with voting, but most who have written on the subject have assumed that deliberative rights and voting rights were inseparable. And this is where traditional political science got trapped into thinking that the problem of democracy was basically insoluble. In my conception, voting is about consent. In a proxy system, I would normally have the right to vote, and if I don't, I consent to what happens. My proxy, whom I freely choose -- nobody is required to name a proxy -- is likely to vote similarly to me, if I've chosen well, or may vote better than I will, because of being better informed, wiser, etc. Who would you prefer to represent you, a robot who votes the way you want, or an intelligent person who will vote their own best conclusion, having been chosen by you freely and without constraint? Some answer the robot, but I sure wouldn't prefer that!

How does this apply to Wikipedia? Wikipedia uses a distributed decision-making model, it works quite well, as I would have expected, but it breaks down under some circumstances, which mostly have to do with local consensus vs. true general consensus. Local consensus is warped by participation bias. Delegable proxy provides a means to possibly extrapolate from votes to a more general level of consensus, but the decision-making model I would have remain the same: decisions are made by individuals, as advised by discussion. And the individual making the decision is responsible for it, and has volunteered to implement it. However, as a circle of discussion becomes wider, more and more, the weight of the community counts. At a Wikipedia Assembly level, true voting would be done; however, I'd still leave the situation that the Assembly is advisory only. It simply advises on a large scale. That's what FA/DP organizations do: they only advise or lead, they do not control. Have you noticed that ArbComm has no direct power, it merely advises? It advises editors and it advises Jimbo and the Foundation, who choose to respect the advice or not. ArbComm only has power, functionally, because editors, and especially administrators, choose to respect it. The administrators could take a wikibreak and nothing could be done to enforce a decision. The editors could decide to stop editing, stop recent changes patrolling, whatever, and nobody could force them to take it up. It's a big FA, in reality, but people don't realize it.

Delegable proxy in such a situation would create networks of trust that would allow groups so connected to rapidly develop internal consensus, and thus to negotiate broader consensus with actual participation by only a few editors. [[WP}PRX]] was called an "experiment." It designed a proxy assignment file format and a central proxy table that would collect the proxy information through transclusion. It was actually too complicated, there was a simpler form that I proposed that would allow anyone to set up a proxy table instead of depending on one central table (which makes the whole system vulnerable to vandalism and other problems.) Very deliberately, it avoided any suggestion of !voting, but enemies appeared immediately who assumed that it involved voting and who tried to get the whole idea deleted. Not just "rejected," but actually deleted. Boy did it touch some nerve! I wasn't surprised, but my friend was, it seriously upset him, and he lost it.

It was all pretty silly. Not to propose it, but to get upset about it and to oppose it so strongly. It wasn't going to happen, not yet. Slogan for beyondpolitics.org: Lift a Finger, Save the World. But Most People Won't Lift a Finger.

Why not? Well, because they don't believe that it's possible. Some really object to that slogan, they say that people work hard to change things for the better, and certainly they do. But what if there was something really, really easy that would "save the world?" Would people do it? What I say is that, no, they wouldn't, unless somehow they come to think something like Nasruddin putting yoghurt in the lake.

Nasruddin was seen by his friend pouring some yoghurt in the lake. "Why are you doing that," the friend asked. "I'm trying to turn the lake into yoghurt." "But," the friend protested, "You can't turn the lake into yoghurt, yoghurt is made from milk, and the lake is water." "Yes, I know that," Nasruddin replied, "But, just think! What if it works?"

It might help to know that in traditional Islamic symbology, milk is a symbol for knowledge. What if the lake is actually ready to be changed? How would we know? The only way, probably, would be to pour a little yoghurt in and see what happens. Seed the structure, see if it crystallizes. What I see is that we are approaching something like a saturated liquid, maybe even supersaturated. These ideas are popping up all over, but, so far, no seed crystal of sufficient size has appeared; until it does, the random chaotic motion of people breaks apart the connections, they don't persist or operate reliably enough. But once there is a demonstration of these ideas working, it will be imitated, if it works. "Works" means that it operates effectively and efficiently to facilitate communication, cooperation, and coordination on a large scale. There are plenty of elements here and there; for example, there is Moveon.org; but they don't have the truly open membership that an FA has that would allow it to generate large-scale consensus rather than consensus within a defined faction. FA's don't take controversial positions as an FA. They exist for the purpose of facilitating and expressing consensus, but not enforcing it or even making it official (though in AA, there are publications that represent very broad consensus; but any member of AA is totally free to disagree with anything in the publications, and only if their *behavior* threatens the functional unity of the group -- which is absolutely not about dogma -- would there be some action against it. That almost never happens on a large scale, AA has no blacklist of people not allowed to attend or participate in meetings, but individual meetings can and do make their own decisions. Exclusion is rare, but it happens. AA deals with some very, very dysfunctional people!)

Ahem! more coffee? I've had enough for tonight. Obviously! --Abd (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved question: For my own education / curiosity

• Hi Abd. I happened to come across your ANI thread about reversions by JzG in Cold Fusion. I sincerely don't want to get involved in this issue, but I am trying to understand the situation a bit better for my own curiosity and education: please can I clarify 1 or 2 things if you get some time? Firstly, you say that the reverted source was whitelisted. Does this mean that some kind of community approval for the source was granted, kind of like an authorisation to use the source? If so my understanding would be that you should not be able to remove this reference without removing the whitelisting, and in all sincerity at face value this would put JzG way out of line for reverting it over and over again if he understood the whitelisting and as an admin he should know better. So if my understanding is correct up to this point, I don't understand why this was dismissed on ANI. My next question would be: are you satisfied that your ANI was resolved correctly? Or conversely do you see this as another failure of our admins? (Just so we can all get a nice status check on Wikipedia's health). Rfwoolf (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The dysfunction of AN/I is well known, the editor who started it, if I'm correct, later concluded that it was a mistake. In this case, I went there with a specific behavioral problem, not a content issue, but, as I've seen happen before -- see User:Abd/MKR incident -- the attention of those participating was turned to the content issue, which AN/I is not supposed to resolve. If it's not supposed to resolve that, why did so many editors address content? And then I was accused of trying to get support for a content position, which was surely stupid if that had been my intention. The closing admin did not address the actual issue raised, nor did most of those who commented. I eventually said, "Assume that JzG is right about the content, that the link shouldn't be there. Does this, then, justify his use of repeated reversion to assert this position?" I asked this question very, very clearly, several times, and it wasn't answered. No problem, the question will be asked again, until it finds an answer, not just distraction and misdirection, whether deliberate or not. Some think it's deliberate, skillful manipulation, but I think, probably not. It's just the way crowds work when they think their ox is being gored. Because of his popularity among some very active Wikipedians, JzG does appear to have a Get Out Of Jail Card Free card. But the problems of this are burbling up; and if this goes to ArbComm, it won't be pretty. With very little exposure, there has already been some substantial comment from some very substantial editors that JzG has been acting in violation of restrictions on administrators, and recognition that he is too involved, too attached to a particular POV. I wasn't intending to pursue this with any fervor at all, but was proceeding very slowly, mostly working on identifing the problems with the blacklisting process, when this edit warring popped up. It was a clear violation of WP:EDITWAR, just not of the bright-line WP:3RR, and it was a continuation of a long pattern of similar removals. So I decided to ask AN/I about it. Testing the water, you might call it, though certainly not just to make a point. I really didn't know what would happen, and it could depend on the luck of the draw, i.e., who happens along when the discussion is first open.

Now, about the blacklist and whitelist. There is a blacklist here, and a global blacklist on meta. The local blacklist prevents any user from adding a link to a blacklisted URL to any place on Wikipedia. For example, try to link to http://lenr-canr.og, in an edit, you will see what happens. The only reason that I could save this edit is that I surrounded the URL with nowiki tags that make it into plain text instead of a link. JzG blacklisted the site, himself, without discussion and without logging it, lenr-canr.org. See User:Abd/JzG for a history of his involvement with Cold fusion and his admin actions taken with respect to it and users involved with it. When this was challenged here, first on his Talk page and then on the blacklist page, he went to meta and requested global blacklisting there, not informing them of the discussion here or notifying us of the request there. It was granted: he is a routine volunteer with the blacklisting operations, and he is trusted. And once blacklisting is granted, it is like pulling teeth to get something off the list, if it is at all marginal, for whatever reason. He asserted linkspamming (actually false, it didn't happen, what was presented as evidence of linkspamming wasn't links and blacklisting didn't prevent it from happening later), copyright violation (apparently purely false), and fringe (perhaps, but irrelevant, the blacklist wasn't designed to be used for content control), and a few other charges.

Now, once a site is globally blacklisted, or locally blacklisted, *specific links* can be whitelisted locally. One goes to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and requests whitelisting. For global blacklisting, any individual language wiki can decide to whitelist the entire site, so the global blacklist is moot for that site, locally. For a local blacklist, that would be silly, since the response properly would be to delist, not to whitelist. However, in this case, local whitelisting of the whole site is impractical, because of the farrago of reasons given that the site is totally unusable; the argument will be (and was) made that one can always whitelist a link if it's needed. So User:Enric Naval not a POV-pusher, went to the whitelist page and requested whitelisting for a specific paper that is hosted at lenr-canr.org. After the issues were considered, and after considerable delay, that page was whitelisted by Beetstra. But when Enric added the link, JzG, who had removed it in the first place, then blacklisted, making it impossible to revert his edit, removed it again. And again, and again, and again, and then again after the AN/I report was filed, all the while claiming that *I* was edit warring, even though I only reverted twice, a week apart, with extensive discussion, and the second time just before going to AN/I and reporting the problem. Enric Naval reverted three times, and JzG, six. It's quite plain: he's got something serious against allowing any links to lenr-canr.org; he often refers to Rothwell, the site manager, and may have some personal issue there. However, the article isn't referencing lenr-canr.org, it is -- or was -- referencing a publication of conference proceedings by Tsinghua University, and lenr-canr.org just happens to be hosting a copy of the paper with permission from the author and publisher. So the reliability of lenr-canr.org should be moot, they are not the source, just a place where the source can be read, as an isolated page, without editorial comment or other possible fringe advocacy not present in the source itself.

Frustrating, perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not attached to any piece of content, you win some, you lose some, and what seems like a win today, we might realize tomorrow was a loss, and vice-versa. JzG isn't the problem. The problem is process, or, more specifically, missing process, incomplete guidelines, undocumented but common practices that have never been broadly considered but which are followed by a small group of tightly cooperating adminstrators, etc. I actually don't think it will be difficult to fix the process problems, at least some of them, and there are admins working with me to this end. From my point of view, I'm being quite successful. But it's a slow process. Was I satisfied with the result at AN/I? No, but I was very satisfied something like the day before, when I went to AN/I with a problem with Hu12. Hu12 isn't as popular or well-known as JzG, and the offense of Hu12 was simple and blatant: he removed a comment of mine from a closed discussion on the local blacklist page, I think it was. (You can find links to current incidents that I consider might be of general interest at User:Abd/Notices. I keep traffic there way down, unless someone vandalizes it!) Was I surprised with the JzG result? Again, no, but I also couldn't have predicted it with any reliability. The open question, for me, is when the community will be ready to confront repeated and serious violations of policy by JzG, this isn't the first example. The evidence is accumulating, this is a wiki, and history is maintained. There is already User:Abd/JzG, prepared as an evidence page for an Arbitration request filed by JzG, and used there, and commented upon by some heavyweights, which makes it difficult to get it MfD'd, as would surely otherwise be done. There is the evidence about edit warring presented in the AN/I report just closed, that can't be deleted without causing a lot of attention to be drawn to it. And so forth. The wheels of wikijustice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

I couldn't be doing what I'm doing without some degree of administrative support. I'd be blocked in a flash. I had to work pretty hard to build those creds and resources. It takes time, many don't have the patience for it. And I'm not sure that it's a particularly sane thing for me to do. After all, what do I get out of it? Another day older and deeper in debt, the old song goes. But then people thank me, and I see that someone has been helped, and out of that, somebody creates hundreds of articles; from researching the blacklisting of lyrikline.org, I now have evidence and material for hundreds of links and possibly hundreds of new articles on notable poets, etc., etc. If one person hears and reads the poem of Chirikure Chirikure on lyrikline.org, (see Talk for the article), called Hakurarwi, what's that worth? What about a thousand people? Still blacklisted, but these barriers will fall. If not, Wikipedia is doomed, but I'd rather not see that waste. It's not about me, or about one link or article, but about the process. Process errors multiply, whereas individual errors are just individual errors.

Have some tea or coffee. Cream? Make yourself at home, come by any time. --Abd (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed thank you for your verbose response, which I respected and read thoughtfully (and for the record I enjoy verbosity -- if that would be the right term. So many people are far too short and sweet and fail to expound on things that need expounding). However, one thing that strikes me apparent is the economics of such verbosity. If this post took up say 20 minutes of your time, that self-same 20 minutes could perhaps have been better spent for example getting your facts in a row for Arbcom, or looking through history for evidence, or perhaps familiarising yourself through wikipedia policy in order to be able to cite it later. In other words, if it were me, with some Wikipedia endeavours being overly cumbersome, it would actually chase me away from Wikipedia (and despite what some may say, this has in fact been the case for me to some degree). The issues on Wikipedia which you are taking up (which certainly do seem worthy) may ultimately cost you hours and days of your time. But it would be naive for me to assume you aren't aware of this already. You do this apparently because you want. So carry on.

You remarked / acknowledged that the admins at ANI failed to acknowledge that your dispute was over behaviour and not content and added ("Some think it's deliberate, skillful manipulation, but I think, probably not"). I get very frustrated at our admins for not being able to stick to the process of an issue - instead focusing on whatever is irrelevant and in many cases straw man arguments. I feel that process was not followed in your AN/I but sadly am not confident enough to be certain because I'm not an admin and perhaps there is more to it than I'm seeing, but certainly in the past I've seen this sort of thing happening quite often, yes in cases involving JzG -- again I would say I feel as if the mob is protecting him and I would like to believe that there are 'wise' admins out there who are conscious that this nonsense is going on. In any event -- mobster behaviour or not -- the result is a loss of faith in our admins, rightfully or wrongfully, misplaced or not. Adding to this already existing perception, the admins in this ANI didn't make it any easier by demonstrating a clear execution of procedure and policy -- a great amount of policy was cited -- but as to the actual procedural policy (perhaps the most relevant policy) it would seem the admins were left to interpret what to do without clarity. In other words, for your AN/I to be thrown out, I would like to see a proper rationale, a citation of policy which states something like "issues regarding policy do not belong on the ANI [unless this goes to admin behaviour]". In fact if this were a court, an impartial judge would try shed light on both sides of the argument, something like "..while it is clear this is a content issue, I am also not pursuaded that JzG's behaviour would be tantamount to an incident" -- you see, here the admin could have shed light on both YOUR argument (the OP) and the dissenting admins. But no, they appear to have simply taken one side and not even acknowledged yours. This again adds credence to a mob like situation.

Furthermore I have seen no compromise here. Nobody, (perhaps not even JzG) seems ready to admit any slight wrongdoing on his part or any acknowledgement of your side of the argument. It would be nice if we could hear "I believe I'm right but I do see your point" or "Sorry I just don't see it that way, but I do see your viewpoint". Instead the situation is twisted -- the sheep admins bleated "it takes two to wheel-war, it takes two" -- not admitting JzG may have been out of line, but instead bringing you out of line. We don't need 3 admins to give us that little nugget about taking 2 to wheel-war, almost tantamount to an attack.

I believe one message comes clear (to me) in my own response here, and that is that life is short, and when faced with an apparent cabal and all these politics, why not run as far away from this project as possible - why spend 20 minutes typing a reply to an uninvolved person that isn't going to help the situation - why not just let this system run itself amuck and hopefully correct itself?

I certainly respect your efforts and wish you every success, but I do hope that if you do succeed in your efforts that it would not be a phyrric victory and I am certainly not suggesting that you actually "run away" from the ghosts in this machine (and I would very much like to see JzG brought to book for much of his behaviour) -- I guess what I'm really trying to say is, respect the project and its spirit, don't respect its crap. :) Hope you managed to understand what I'm trying to say even though I may lack the most apt way of saying it or even sometimes say what I do not fully mean. Rfwoolf (talk)`

Thanks, Rfwoolf. I do know what I'm doing. There are admins who acknowledge, privately, the problem, and a few who have acknowledged it publicly, see the recent RfAr from JzG, some responses in which were cited in the instant AN/I report. As to private acknowledgment, the sense is that they got burned when they raised an issue before and they simply want to stay away. But there is regular WP:DR process, if someone has the patience to pursue it. If I were in a hurry, I'd be dead meat. It's tricky enough taking this slowly, but it does keep me saner. As I've said, JzG isn't the problem, but without examples of the problem accumulating, it's very difficult to do anything about it. JzG, hopefully, will see the train coming and will get off the tracks, but that will be up to him. He's warning me, by the way, that my behavior is heading for a ban. Perhaps. I don't think so, it would be pretty disruptive, unless I really screw up. I'm pretty sure there are those who are watching and waiting for that, I see little signs that what I do is being followed. But that's okay. One of the changes I'd recommend, ultimately, would be a system whereby administrative actions would be shadowed. What happens now is that some situation finally gets noticed and gets up to RfC or ArbComm, and then they go back and, what do you know, there is a trail littered with improperly blocked editors, speedy deletions that were abusive or inappropriate, etc. As a report said today, do we have to wait for the train wreck? But doing this would be tricky, and we don't want to set up a situation where administrators get slapped for every mistake. But we need to find mistakes quickly so that we know what is going on. It's about structure. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Abd/JzG

User:Abd/JzG, 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/User:Abd/JzG and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Abd/JzG 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!) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama ACORN fight

I posted the following at the probation page of Ratttso:

Wikipedia is not your house, Abd. But my house was invaded by Holder and I was insulted by his "shouting" that "Americans are "cowards"". Also, Ratttso was blocked without comment before he began to "shout", then was insulted by Holder, not to mention several other editors that actually used proffanity herein. Typical Wikipedia setup and you know it. Besides, all he and anyone on the apposing side here have said that needs to be said at the beginning, that was technical was conveniently taken as derogatory clearly indicating the fallacy of wikipedia policy of allowing deletions for percieved attacks even though the deleter well knows that it was not meant as such but simply communicating a technical point. That policy should be changed to "generalized" insults of a non-technical nature. I'll take up Rattso's cause and the others that have been nefariously deleted and insulted, Abd. Game?

Let me know Cc2po (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rattso crossed boundaries, and that others crossed boundaries should be irrelevant, except for possible consideration in further process, and with some acknowledgment from him that "he ain't gonna do it again." Rattso didn't respect the unblock template. Sure, he might be "right," in some way -- I have no judgment on that -- but two wrongs don't make a right. If you need help addressing civility and issues of conflict of interest or the like, I respond to requests and occasionally notice things and intervene without request. I'm not a miracle worker, but sometimes I've been able to reconcile opposing sides, and am working steadily (and slowly) on overall process issues. I went to Rattso's page and made an offer, and gave some advice. He ignored it. So I'm not terribly concerned about Rattso, but I am concerned about your description of the situation. (I.e., let me hypothesize. Editors A and B insult editor C. Editor C responds with tit for tat. Editor C is sanctioned. A and B continue without consequence.)

In theory, Wikipedia does not punish, it only protects the project. Editors are not to be blocked or banned based solely on past sins, but rather on expectation of continued damage. If you want to punish the other editors for their incivility, forget about it, you will bring fire and brimstone down on yourself. But if you want to, for example, warn an editor about recent incivility, go ahead. If the behavior is then repeated, there is a basis for further process. One step at a time, and seek consensus. I.e., when you warn, be very carefully civil. Don't make personal characterizations, like "bad faith," or "POV-pusher" or even "biased." Stick to what you could prove, and provide at least minimal evidence, such as diffs. Always provide the other editor with an escape route, i.e., a way to gracefully fix it. "Ah, I was upset that afternoon, I really shouldn't have said that." I.e., focus on the actual behavior, not intentions or the rest, even if you are personally convinced that the editor is out to wreck the place. Just talk about the damaging actions, clearly and succinctly. Assume good faith, i.e., that the damage was not intended. (Perhaps an editor does intend to drive another editor away, but believes that this will be the best thing for the project.)

Start small, with a direct request to the editor whose behavior seems improper to you. Follow WP:DR which would then suggest involving, perhaps, *one* more editor, ideally a neutral one, to mediate. I've done this successfully for others, and I've asked for mediation and it has worked. Insisting in immediately fixing things, being impatient, can bring a backlash. Keep the welfare of the project in mind. Nobody said that being a Wikipedia editor was easy, especially if one is going to edit articles on controversial topics. And read WP:DGAF, it is actually very sound advice. People at high levels in government and the judicial systems know that you win some and lose some, and if they got upset when they lose, they would become dysfunctional and start making mistakes by trying too hard.

Good luck, and if you think I can help, bring something specific to me. I can also be reached by email, if you need to keep it private.

By the way, I have opinions about ACORN and the attack on ACORN. They are, to me, irrelevant. I've intervened on behalf of editors whose POV I didn't like at all, because I believe more in NPOV and consensus process than I do in my own opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Cc2po was confirmed as a sock of Ratttso and Larrry2, all indef-blocked now. Also, their common IP address, 71.114.8.82, was put on ice for 3 months. That should quiet things down a little. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BB. Sounds right on the face of it. If Cc2po thinks s/he got a bad deal, IP editors may post to User talk:Abd/IP under some conditions. Note that my AGF and offers of help do not in themselves indicate any specific opinion on my part. I may also be emailed directly at abd AT lomaxdesign PERIOD com. Offer subject to restrictions.... --Abd (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He/she/it/they called attentive to it/themself by filing a complaint on WP:ANI. Socks always seem to think that no one has tried this before. Either that, or it's just a trolling game they're playing, to see how far they can go before getting nailed. There hasn't been a peep from any of them so far. They might be looking for a new computer to use, because they were "hard blocked", which I think means no new user IDs can be created on that channel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't say here what I know about block evasion! Note that I'm not investigating this, I'm simply taking what you say as true. Basic principle of common law: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. (Lots of Wikipedia principles, such as AGF, have a solid foundation in common law, even ignore all rules is the common-law principle of Public policy. This situation looked grim from the beginning, and I certainly don't follow the noticeboards or administrators around looking for bad blocks, and, you'll note, I supported the block on Rattso's Talk page even as I offered help. I knew that it was unlikely that the offer would be seriously accepted; Rattso/Cc2po appears to have abused the privilege; Rattso could have directly contacted me, using a sock was deceptive and reprehensible. I also AGF for the people warning and blocking and filing checkuser, etc! I even assumed good faith for the administrator who blocked me last year. I even assume it for Fredrick day, ultimately, though the definition of "good faith" gets a tad stretched! (I.e., I think Fd has the welfare of the project in mind, but simply doesn't understand the importance of consensus and respect for community norms. If he ever showed a change of intention, I'd support his unban, and if a sock of his is identified, I would not automatically assume that it should be blocked. It would depend on whether or not it was disruptive.) Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment about comments

Hi, Abd. Thanks for being open to disagreement; I agree that it's more fun that way.

Re the last sentence of this edit: I consider such comments inappropriate unless posted in an appropriate forum (see WP:DR) and accompanied by evidence. The same applies to some or all of the following: "JzG had rebuffed attempts at direct negotiation, and I had asked him to suggest an informal mediator; he did not respond." "...JzG escalated,..." "He was asking for something very dangerous, and he distorted, there, the history." "JzG views that through rose-colored glasses." "JzG continues to act outside of norms" [12] These are worded, not as objectively-verifiable facts, but as interpretations. To state these, and without evidence, and in an inappropriate forum for such, only weakens your case in my eyes.

"All of us need friends who will warn us and criticize our actions," yes, I agree! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Coppertwig. Since it had not received any response in situ, I removed it. As to the other statements you cite, they are, in fact, more neutral. He did rebuff attempts at direct negotiation (though he also conceded one point out of many, so it wasn't total), I did ask him to suggest a mediator, and he didn't respond. He has no obligation to respond, by the way. I'm really only describing there, Coppertwig, the first steps in dispute resolution process. Going to ArbComm when he did was indeed escalation, since there was lots of prior process before ArbComm would be appropriate. Escalation can, again, be proper, where there is some clear reason for it. But there wasn't any dispute where prior process had been pursued and failed, my own attempts were just the beginning, ArbComm would normally want to see much more than that. Escalation isn't a perjorative term. It's accurate.

He was asking for something very dangerous indeed, that an ArbComm sanction be applied to an editor simply based on alleged similarity of POV. It's hard to imagine something much more dangerous than that, in fact. ArbComm rejected his request, unanimously. Some arbitrators made comments that he could take as supporting his position, but others very clearly made less positive comments. Taking a mixed ArbComm discussion and reporting it, as he does in the nomination, as some kind of whole-hearted support, is accurately described as that "he views through rose-colored glasses." That is, his report is selective and thus, even where accurate, misleading or distorted.

As to "acting outside of community norms," fine. I'll take that out, because I was establishing, for you, why this is of importance, not just ancient history. We are allowed to say things like this about administrators, though. We can get a whole lot more uncivil than this, unless, perhaps, it's JzG being criticized. Have you looked at the edit summaries on the evidence page being MfD'd? Anyway, it is almost certainly going to be an RfC, I predict. --Abd (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting and striking some of the comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I struck another comment, the mention of the evidence page in Talk:Martin Fleischmann, mentioned in the MfD. However, a Delete close on this MfD, unless the !votes change drastically, would be disruptive, because, being close, and with the issue of deletion of evidence used before ArbComm being so important, I would certainly go to DRV if someone else doesn't, and, likewise, this would be grounds for a direct RfAr, because the rights of ArbComm to the undamaged record of its own process are affected. Remember, JzG is regularly claiming that his denied RfAr was a resounding endorsement of his actions; without that page, while there is certainly contrary comment there, there isn't any evidence behind it. The RfAr would not be about JzG, but only about the issue of deletion of the page without clear consensus to do so. However, of course, I'll wait to see what the closing admin says; even though I've stated an intention to go to DRV if it closes Delete, a cogent argument by the closing admin could always convince me otherwise. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Still with this? -.- How about you spend your time formatting it as a RFC and presenting it? The current page can be a redirect to the RFC, and the top of the RFC you can put a link to the old version used on the RFAR, or some similar solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with an RfC: it must be certified by two users who have attempted to resolve the dispute on the editor's Talk page or on Talk for involved articles. I tried to raise the issue of admin action while involved with JzG, and it was certainly raised in the RfAr JzG filed, but that RfAr wasn't about JzG, in itself; rather "it" needed to know about JzG's involvement to be more careful about confirming his ban of Jed Rothwell. So that's one. Has anyone else tried, in a focused way, to resolve this issue with JzG. It's been said to me off-wiki that some don't want to touch anything involving him with a ten-foot pole. So I want to identify the person before putting up the RfC, and, in fact, I really do want to see a preferably neutral editor try to resolve this. And I'm willing to risk the deletion of the file to respect that part of the process. It can always be undeleted if it's needed, and I have a copy. (Really, those editors! With some of them, I suspect, I was active on-line before they were born.) However, there are strong arguments not to delete in its prior usage before ArbComm.

(unindent) The evidence page is lengthy, and it is getting lengthier as I take the history back to first involvement with Cold fusion. It doesn't just show problem edits, and maybe most of the edits are fine. That's not what you show in an RfC, not the whole body of evidence, just selected evidence, with reference to a source; the user page is, of course, itself referenced to History. An RfC isn't just a pile of edits, it's a summary of what the edits *mean*. That can be done fairly briefly, but without the evidence file, it becomes just an assertion that would take hours to confirm. No, the proper way is for an extensive evidence file to be a separate file. I'll research more where it should live, it might go into RfC subspace, for example. But until it's finished, it should stay in my user space. Others are welcome to edit it, ab initio, but that freedom isn't license. The evidence file should be NPOV or reasonably close. I say some things in it, in the excerpts from JzG's logs, that are what I consider obvious conclusions from the record and Wikipedia guidelines, to make the record more intelligible.

For example,

• 20:51, 18 December 2008 JzG blocked 68.158.255.197 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Disruptive editor who states he has no interest in improving Wikipedia, only in causing annoyance.)

Rothwell IP. Rothwell had stated that he wasn't interested in editing articles. Note that as an SPA and COI editor, he would largely be confined to Talk, given all the controversy, so he was only confirming compliance with policy.

Did Rothwell state that he had "no interest in improving Wikipedia, only in causing annoyance." I'm not looking it up right now, but what I recall was that he said he wasn't interested in editing articles, when someone suggested he do that. As a COI editor, he'd be prohibited from editing the Cold fusion article with respect to anything involved with cold fusion, where he's an expert. (An expert from an arguably fringe POV, but that involves knowing the whole field, including standard science, all the arguments being made both ways, etc. He's a writer by profession, I think.)

I've asked that if anything added like that there was objectionable, to point it out. I think the statement above is about the worst of it. The first part, the list of edits, is almost purely taken from diffs, no comment, except I note edits to protected articles there as well as below in the admin action section. Some of his edits to protected articles seem quite appropriate, but others don't. Seeing all the edit summaries in one place, though, which can't so easily be done with ordinary tools, as far as I know, is very useful, I find it enlightening to look at the edit summaries. Sometimes his edit summaries are cryptic, not disclosing a major action, but other times they say a lot.

If the page is deleted, I think it likely that I or someone else -- better if it is someone else -- take it to DRV. And if DRV sustains deletion, then I'd have a basis to go directly to ArbComm with a request for a motion to undelete. JzG wouldn't be the issue, the issue would be simple: keeping a file used in an RfAr, with significant comment in the RfAr supported by it, or allowing it to be deleted. Were it an uncivil attack page, that would be one thing. But it isn't. The MfD was just more useless wikidrama, except for one thing: by thrashing about so much, JzG may be attracting sharks. He's offended quite a few people, apparently. I had no idea. I just saw this strange action, his blacklisting of lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, done quite out-of-process, and started looking into it, and when I encountered improper actions, I asked him to reverse them. What do you think was his response?

You've seen what he did with the link to lenr-canr.org in Martin Fleischmann. As one argument didn't gain traction, another one would be introduced. At some point one begins to suspect that arguments are being manufactured to support a previous conclusion. It's from a fringe web site. Copyvio. Alteration of documents. Linkspam. (no links! so no linkspam! -- Rothwell signs edits with his title, which is a position with a web site, which he names but does not link to! so the blacklisting didn't prevent the "links" which supposedly it was based on.) Then, it's a BLP and we must have particularly reliable source. But, JzG, the paper is by the subject of the article, and it is preposterous that it's fraudulent.

No, we can't tolerate links to fringe kook linkspamming POV-pushing editor's biased web site full of copyright violations, and did I mention that he altered documents?

When there is an editor with a lot of adminstrative friends who assume that, okay, it's a little overblown, but those arguments couldn't all be wrong, they will support the conclusion without really assessing the individual arguments carefully. That is why I'm running that obsessively detailed process in Martin Fleischmann, and am resisting effort to link the issues, so that it becomes one big fuzzy pile again. Is there reason to believe that there is copyvio? I haven't seen anyone support it there, but I've sure seen JzG claim this, over and over, going way back. He lays out the evidence, which appears to be a personal experience he had with Elsevier. So if lenr-canr.org hosts papers from Elsevier, there *must* be copyvio, right?

However, the same argument really cuts the other way. Elsevier vigorously defends copyright, and lenr-canr.org is about as prominent for some of these papers as a web site can get. They wouldn't notice, and go after him? That's why editors who know copyright aren't supporting JzG's argument.

Alteration of documents? Well, I can take a public domain document, and republish it. When I do, I can add front matter, I can add an index or an appendix, I can change the type face, I can do all kinds of things that are routinely accepted. What JzG has confused is the fact that a paper with additional material added is deprecated for use here, compared to one without it, with fraudulent alteration, where the actual content of the paper is altered. You can see in the mini-RfC how some editors are trying to keep the issues linked, so that more than one will need to be decided at the same time. I don't blame them, Wikipedia hasn't done much to encourage good consensus process, which almost always involves this kind of deconstruction of issues.

It may not seem like we are making much progress, but I don't see it that way. We started out with a list of claims that had actually been made. Some of those claims can be set aside. That's progress. And there is some level of agreement on some of my proposed conclusions. That's progress. We may or may not get all the way to consensus, but what we will have done is to define the issues so that when we go to a broader forum, the issues are clear, and clearly organized. Wikipedia process fails when fuzzy presentation of issues, coupled with partisan fervor, allows !votes to be made that are really more actions on one side or another, than they are a reflection of agreement on a set of crisply defined points.

It's much harder to !vote Delete, for example, if you had to first, !vote on a set of specific points as evidence. Is this link reliable source? Why, specifically, or why not, specifically? Is there another such reliable source? Does the article meet *this* requirement of the notability guideline. Is there sufficient material for a stub? Would this text be a proper stub?

Instead, what may be several dozen issues get all mixed together, and !votes are proposed final results and don't indicate agreement with any specific point. Suppose that a set of editors are considering an array of arguments. The arguments, we will presume, are all false. However, for each editor, there is one argument that really pulls their chain. Everyone else considers it false. Most editors have some prejudice, essentially, in one direction, and what happens is that this prejudice can ride on some argument that seems plausible to the editor. An editor may think that Topic X is offensive, and may then place more weight on some argument for deletion. If we look at each argument in turn, we can find that all arguments are rejected by rough consensus. But the conclusion is in the contrary direction, if we are looking at appearance of consensus. That's why closes are supposed to be on the arguments, not on the !votes, but we don't organize AfDs, etc., around the arguments. That's what I tried to do on Martin Fleischmann. Discuss each argument first. See if we can find consensus on that particular one.

Now, what happens, of course, is that people will argue and even reason from conclusions. They will be aware of the implications of rejecting an argument that can be used on "their side." So, sometimes, they will argue past all reason that some argument is valid, or that an argument in the other direction is preposterous. However, going into specifics, details, can make this completely untenable, and people will abandon the effort, usually. If they don't have the power to toss you in jail! It's the Socratic method, actually. It takes patience, it takes time. But there is also a substantial body of knowledge about how to make it more efficient, which Wikipedia generally neglects, thinking, I suspect, that we are better than anything else.... --Abd (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And now you are saying that you'll go to DRV and then to Arbcom to complain about the page being deleted.... You can solve all of this by simply presenting the RFC in 30 days.... (30 days since the closure of the MfD, so the limit day would be 24th March)

And you challenging the deletion closure because you don't agree on the cognitive process that editors follow to !vote..... really, I don't think that this argument can stand on DRV....

And I don't think that that evidence page was so vital for the RFAR. Every editor can put 500 words, you already put +1000 words on your RFAR statement. You need to learn to be way more brief, and let the diffs speak by themselves. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Enric, don't say what "I'm saying" unless you quote me. Yes, I can solve the problems by filing the RfC. The DRV request, if it ever happens, would be based on very narrow grounds, and what I write, here on my Talk page, may be dicta, I wouldn't repeat it there. As to brief, the limitation at RfAr is a suggestion, not a rule. And files are commonly used where the raw evidence would create excess. If I put too much there, it would be up to a clerk to refactor, it's happened. There is nothing happening with the file until and unless an RfC is filed or the thirty days lapses, so why are you debating it? The evidence was vital, it is possible (this I don't know) that it affected the outcome. I'm not at liberty to disclose all the reasons, but quite a few editors made comments there that would be without any basis if not for my claims and that file to back them up. And it is ultimately up to ArbComm what evidence it wants to keep. It isn't necessary for them to make any decision at all, at this point, that's why you aren't seeing any ArbComm process, and ArbComm would want the due process of DRV to be followed first. Then, if DRV is keep deleted, regardless of the arguments and !votes, unless I'm convinced or I'm told by ArbComm to shut up, ArbComm would be asked. Because I'd ask privately first, and would only go to actual RfAr if there are some positive noises, there may never be any further action. I'd probably do this (private inquiry) before even bothering with DRV. And DRV is not relevant yet, the file hasn't been deleted, and a delayed deletion is almost like a delayed close.

Where is disruption coming from on this? The evidence file, as it stands, is just a pile of diffs. If it is a "laundry list of grievances," something is strange. The file used to have my conclusions in it, but those conclusions were also repeated at RfAr, which is why I so easily consented to moving them out to Talk. This whole MfD was unnecessary, I'd have blanked the file on reasonable request, as I promised to do so in the MfD. Look at what has happened: JzG filed an RfAr request without following at all WP:DR, over a matter that is routinely handled at a much lower level with little fuss; but because this matter was one where he had acted while involved, it was important that the request not get a positive response from ArbComm unless it actually took the case up and deliberated it. ArbComm members might not even suspect that JzG was involved, and so they would have been sucked into confirming an action that was very much contrary to administrative policy. Filing RfAr, at the time and in the way he did, was disruptive. I had just begun, with him, the first steps in WP:DR, he escalated. Then he MfD'd the evidence file. He's quite obviously not getting serious support from other admins. You can't start an RfC without two editors signing on, and RfC is practically obligatory before going to ArbComm, in situations like his block/ban of Rothwell. And the norm for supposed "attack" files is that someone nominates who isn't the target. It's not prohibited, but JzG's nomination was replete with false and misleading statements, and some of them stick, they contaminated the discussion, it was obvious, because editors kept repeating blatantly false statements as the reason for their !Delete vote. Note that the !vote was 11 Delete and 10 Keep (including the Keep and Blank) option, even with all this. (An abusive nomination can be itself the reason for overturning; in that case sometimes the result is that new MfD is allowed by another editor.) --Abd (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll quote you instead: "I would certainly go to DRV if someone else doesn't, and, likewise, this would be grounds for a direct RfAr, because the rights of ArbComm to the undamaged record of its own process are affected."23th February "If the page is deleted, I think it likely that I or someone else -- better if it is someone else -- take it to DRV. And if DRV sustains deletion, then I'd have a basis to go directly to ArbComm with a request for a motion to undelete" 24th February.

About editors signing the RfC, you aren't required to have only editors that are involved in all the aspects of the dispute, and they don't need to agree with you in how it should be solved. I'll happily be one of the signers, since I have tried to resolve the dispute (I commented on Talk:Cold fusion, WP:AE, the RfAR page, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist and Talk:Martin Fleischmann), you will only need one more signer. You can also ask User:Beetstra for another signature, maybe also User:Coppertwig. User:Phil153 was involved on Jed's ban, and so was User:Kevin Baas, so you can also ask them for a signature. You don't need to get the signatures before placing the RfC, you can upload it and then ask people to sign. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I haven't noticed that you attempted to resolve the specific issue of use of tools while involved. People may have opined on the edit warring (not an admin tool issue), but not on involved tool use. I've seen editors provide statements about use of tools while involved with respect to JzG, but I don't read these as "attempts to resolve the dispute." It would mean going to JzG's Talk page (though there are other options, but this better be crystal clear or it will be quickly killed.

I think there is something that has been missed. I want a real effort to resolve the dispute without RfC. I'm not just trying to satisfy technical requirements. Now, if somebody has a dispute with JzG, related to use of admin tools while involved, I'd be willing to join with that person, it would be the same issue.

Once the RfC is put up, there are two days to get certification, or it's deleted, as I recall. So one better have one's ducks in a row. If JzG is as intransigent as he seems, if his friends don't intervene to encourage him to do what Arbcomm would eventually conclude he should have done, the RfC will happen, I'm sure about that. (Theoretically, someone might convince me that his use was justified under WP:IAR, though an arbitrator already specifically rejected that, as I recall.) --Abd (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

About signatures: well, I think that my signature would be accepted for the RfC to fullfill the technical requirement (and, indeed, I think that it's just a technical requirement to filter out one-man requests!). You can make "attempts to resolve the dispute" by simply posting on the article's talk page and on noticeboards, there is no requirement anywhere that you have edited the user's talk page. If you ask those editors I suggested, I think that you can probably get 2 or 3 signatures more on top of mine, or even some more, and, most probably, they will all be accepted as valid. For example, I think that Dan's signature would also be accepted, since he made commentaries and advice here, the RFar page, and on JzG's talk page, and he might be willing to sign it in order to make it valid.

About JzG: honestly, I doubt very much that he is going to change his posture on either lenr-canr's blacklisting or Jed's ban. Address him directly once more and make the RfC already if he refuses to find anything wrong on his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to go back to him, it would be purely disruptive. Suppose he simply has a personal reaction to my style? Now, I know that lots of users have or have had issues with JzG, it's not just me, and I might review some of this stuff in putting together the RfC, but it could be adequate if I post a comment to Cold fusion, since that is the subject article. Comment there may be sufficient to establish failure to resolve the dispute. Your comment there would, of course, be welcome, as would that of any user. "Majority," there, doesn't matter. Something that JzG consistently either doesn't understand or tries to cover up is that when an issue is not resolved at a low level, if one side "wins," (who determines that?) that isn't the end of the matter, necessarily. If any party thinks that the status quo is deficient, the user may escalate, which generally means bringing it to wider attention. JzG is calling this process "forum shopping," but it's simply WP:DR. Also confused with this is the use of AN and AN/I, which aren't really dispute resolution fora, rather, they are places to deal with matters where admin action may be appropriate, which does not include most content disputes. Use of tools while involved would be an issue that has, in the past, been taken there first; often it has next gone to RfC, and from there to ArbComm. Mediation is possible in some cases; however, what I've been doing is starting at the bottom level: simple request to JzG. When an administrator isn't so far gone as to be unable to see the problems with their own actions, this often works. But it didn't work with JzG. So, then, I was casting about for someone to mediate. Step two: involve a third party. In my dispute with Jehochman, he and I immediately settled on Carcharoth, who said, "Bother! Can't you guys work it out?" Given that I had my self-RfC fully developed by that time, the evidence was clear, and Jehochman essentially caved. All I was asking for was an acknowledgment that his rather extreme warning was an error. Not that it was in bad faith, not that he should be whacked with a wikitrout, just a simple acknowledgment. I would have, then, proceeded to the block itself, but it was getting old, and who cares, really? Except that Iridescent apparently is still holding on to the whole thing and has a radically distorted view of what that self-RfC was, and what I've been about. It didn't discuss her block, at all, but she called it a "laundry list of grievances" in the MfD for User:Abd/JzG.

Seriously, there are editors, with tools, who don't pay enough attention to use them wisely. They may have perfectly good excuses, they may be dealing with mountains of spam and vandalism, but ... if they can't stop and look at an error and make up for it, simply by acknowledging it, but simply hold on to old opinions that don't match the facts, the problem is real and it is dangerous.

JzG has been asserting that I've been "losing," over and over, and that I just keep making more fuss when my position isn't accepted. But I certainly don't see it that way. I'd say that, given the serious inertia I've been dealing with, I've been making remarkable progress. Consider Martin Fleischmann and the page you had whitelisted. JzG removed the entire reference to Fleischmann's "Searching" paper, numerous times, I went to AN/I over that. He kept repeating all the old arguments, and he's still using those same arguments (i.e., the alleged copyright problem with lyrikline.org). The copyright argument has been rather conclusively rejected; he gets away with it by asserting it in new fora and with new editors, who fall for it. You know, Enric, I can back all this up with diffs, but I won't bother now. What happened because I went to AN/I? Well, other editors looked at the article and started assisting. We have the reference now, without the lenr-canr.org link. We have a mini-RfC going on the lenr-canr.org link, and it is in the process of rejecting some of the more clearly spurious arguments, which is progress. Basically, his position wasn't supported by consensus, and consensus as to part of it is the other way. My AN/I notice wasn't a failure, it worked. I brought attention to a problem, edit warring. That wasn't actually addressed, so it remains an open issue. The close claimed that the report was over a content issue, which was incorrect. It was over edit warring and, in fact, in the discussion, I wrote, "Suppose JzG is correct about the content. Does this justify edit warring?"

A few comments said that it wasn't 3RR violation, therefore it wasn't edit warring. That, of course, is a serious misunderstanding of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. If what JzG was doing wasn't edit warring, edit warring has become meaningless.

Most of my effort of late has to do with how the blacklist operates, and trying to apply this to lenr-canr.org, the original clue that I got that there were problems, involves some very complex issues, so I've been working on much simpler cases. Lyrikline.org, I've been calling a poster boy for problem blacklisting. Beetstra makes some reasonable arguments for maintaining global blacklisting, though I think they are rather easily set aside, given what I've learned through extensive study. However, I'm not confronting that. Nor was I confronting the effective local blacklisting of lyrikline.org on en.wikipedia, by not doing what de.wikipedia did: local whitelisting. See, most of lyrikline.org exists in German, since it's a German web site operated by Goethe Institut, the Berlin library system, and other nonprofits and governmental agencies. Beetstra argues that Lyrikline.org links are inappropriate for, say, the Polish Wikipedia. It's debatable. But that argument does not apply to en.wikipedia, because English is one of the interface languages for Lyrikline. In reality, the decision should be made for each poet hosted at Lyrikline.org.

Instead, I identified a poet with an article here, and proposed the link on the poet's talk page. I posted requests for comment on two portals and a WikiProject Poetry. (You can see all this in the current whitelisting request.) No response. The portals and wikiproject and pages are quite inactive. With a single whitelisted link, there is practically no concern about linkspam resulting.

I was teasing out the issues. And it's working. The lyrikline request was just denied by Stifle. Stifle is one of the active blacklist-maintaining administrators. One of the solutions I've come to is that blacklisters come to discard WP:AGF. Look at WP:WikiProject Spam, where they have an image of a battleship. Isn't that a tad odd, considering WP:BATTLE? Look at User:MER-C, with the nuclear detonation. An administrator told me that he spent some time fighting spam, he said that it gave him a warped and rather hostile perspective. Okay, I accept that we need the blacklist, and we need spam-fighters.

But they shouldn't be the ones to decide on whitelisting requests. And that is exactly what is happening. It's a very small group of administrators and, not surprisingly, they back each other up. And once something has been blacklisted, they tend to be rather tenacious. The original cause for blacklisting, usually, is the large-scale addition of links to a particular web site. (Lenr-canr.org is unusual because there wasn't any linkspamming, what JzG asserted as links weren't, they were exactly this, in an IP editor's signature: "librarian, lenr-canr.org." Not a link. The blacklist leaves it alone.

But JzG knows how editors think. He asserts a laundry list of reasons why what he wants should be done. "Linkspam." "Copyvio." "Fringe." Some of them stick, sometimes, but not in a deliberative context, when he's as far out on a limb as he is now. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) raising again user behaviour at Talk:Cold fusion? It was already done and it was removed as off-topic, see Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_23#Irrelevant_thread_blanked. Honestly, you have dragged this issue all over the place, there is no need for further discussion, even if you think so, bring the goddamned thing to RfC, which is the proper next step in WP:DR, instead of insisting again and again that more discussion is needed. There is no such need, I'm tired of this and I get even more tired just thinking of yet another dramafest at another talk page, this needs a centralized organized discussion at a RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC will be written. Filing RfCs is far from obligatory. Want to see an RfC in a hurry, file one yourself. Or answer this question: if I file an RfC claiming use of admin tools while involved, based on the evidence in the file, will you certify it? If your answer is "yes," then I'll rely on that. If you aren't willing, then, please, you stop making demands. This is my Talk page, it is not "all over the place." Links to the file are not continuing to be added. I'm now looking for another editor to certify an RfC, based on the evidence and a simple claim, as stated in User:Abd/Notices. I am, so far, not asking editors off-line, what you see is what you get. But I could. One step at a time, Enric.

Here is the problem with the discussion at Talk:Cold fusion. I raised the issue. Did anyone else "make an effort to resolve the problem?" If you can point to it, and if that user is willing to certify, fine. But I don't recall that. For someone to decide that the problem was off-topic there is not necessarily an "attempt to resolve the problem," rather, it is participating, perhaps, in one side. The issue of use of tools, to my memory, wasn't addressed in a manner that I'd describe as an attempt to resolve the problem. Absolutely, I might get away with an RfC with a defective certification, but I have in the past challenged an RfC based on defective certification. The RfC should have been dismissed, promptly, based on that. But it wasn't. This is, after all, Wikipedia. "Wikilawyering." And then the RfC, which developed evidence that gained broad support, that the user being RfC'd was no worse in the affair than those who filed it or those they were supporting (this latter group included administrators, who are supposedly held to a higher standard of behavior), ended with a kind of topic ban, as I recall, for the target editor. And, since the RfC "wasn't about them," nothing for the editors and admins who had been uncivil, had edit warred, and who had blocked when involved (in one case, the involvement, as I recall, there, consisted of regularly supporting a POV with blocks). The point here is not that RfC, but that effort to resolve should be made in good faith and with reasonable diligence, not merely dropping a warning template, accompanied with incivility, on the editor's Talk page and if the editor doesn't "surrender," considering that a done attempt. We have some well-designed processes on Wikipedia, and one of the problems is that they aren't respected by those whose duty is to support them, administrators. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Abd, you can count me as one sure signature for the RfC. I will certify the RfC, as an user that "contacted the user (...) and tried but failed to resolve the problem", see Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users, users certifying the RfC don't need to agree with your evidence or with your interpretation of it and they can even oppose it. The signers (just like anyone else) can later make statements inside the RfC providing their own interpretation (I might even write one, who knows).

Personally, I find that you are asking too much to certifiers, but that's my interpretation of the RfC process. I already listed some users who more than probably qualify as certifiers in order to help you. I hope you can find another signer. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, it's not a demand, an "asking," rather, I really do believe in trying to resolve an issue at the lowest possible level. However, I have now commitment to support an RfC from multiple editors, the above being the only on-wiki acknowledgement so far. I only need one, there is more than that now. Expect it to take a few days, up to a week or so. I will draft the RfC in my user space, the two-day clock doesn't start ticking until it's moved to RfC space. When the RfC is being drafted, Talk page comments will be welcome from all parties. Thanks for your support. Note that at any time, this RfC process could be halted by civil engagement with JzG. If any of his supporters read this, please consider mediating this dispute, he's not going to listen to me, but he might listen to you. Otherwise, the evidence in the File That Shall Not Be Named -- yet -- (it's the one that he attempted to get deleted, and it is presently courtesy blanked, an outcome I thought just fine) is quite clear: admin action while involved, and possibly more (i.e, justification for a topic ban on cold-fusion related matters). Unrepentant action while involved and absent emergency, is clear grounds for the loss of an admin bit. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Please leave me a note on my talk page after you put up the RFC, so I can go and sign it promptly. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance resolving dispute with JzG

This is about use of admin tools while involved with Cold fusion. See User:Abd/Notices. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

UofA

Persistent, arent they?

• diff

• "... whose authoritative command and expertise ensure curricular distinction in all degree programs offered ..."
• "... signal the breadth and scope of the university’s vision ..."
• "... its unwavering commitment to the high-pitched standards ..."
• "... of first-tier caliber ..."
• "... via the most progressive and effective modes of delivery..."

There is no end to blatant self promotion. I wonder what Uganda has to do with the University of Atlanta .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I saw it and clipped it out and some more as well and I'm probably not done. The article needs some references, particularly for the accreditation, but it's not accredited by two agencies, only one. The other one mentioned doesn't accredit schools, it accredits accrediting agencies! The accreditation is legitimate. I took out the unaccredited category tag A.B. had added. We'll stop it. Watch. See,

"I'm just a small-time Wikipedia editor and I thought that UofA deserved an article and shouldn't be blacklisted, but if someone from your school doesn't stop adding non-encyclopedic promotional content, like [URL to diff] or hiring Search Engine Optimizers who add links to your school web site, I won't be able to stop the howling pack of Berserker spam fighters and they will tear your article to little tiny pieces and compost it, and you'll be blacklisted again. Please rein those people in, or I can't be responsible for the consequences." I'll get it in the mail today. Just in case you don't know what Berserker means, there is a nifty article on it at

[13]

Thanks for your prompt attention. The Berserkers are straining on the chain and it might break at any time.

Sincerely, Abd.

And if not, well, you guys are there for a reason. I'm just trying to make sure the library doesn't get torn up when you tear a spammer to shreds.

-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I phoned the school, got a receptionist and was transferred to someone who sounded a little more authoritative. Very polite, understood the problem right away, showed concern, and promised a call back from one of the top officials, by tomorrow. I'm bad with names off the phone, but one of them was number two in the list of officials ("Trustee") and the other was either top or third. Yes, that's bad, the names aren't at all alike! So that's that end of the stick.

In the other direction, I recommend immediate short-block of IP (24 hrs or 48) adding the promotional material, possible rangeblock (maybe they are on some reseller IP and the range is short, otherwise quite a coincidence that they all are 0.00x, and semiprotect the article because of the IP edit warring. If you decide not to act yourself, I'll request it. Remember, my position is that blacklisting and registered editor blocking without warning shouldn't be used to stop linkspam unless everything else has failed, absent massive ongoing addition of links, but I also recognize the value of immediate action if it doesn't get written in the stone.

Carrot and stick, Beetstra. You've got the stick, I've got the carrot. "You get to have an article, albeit short until you get some notice in independent reliable sources. Abuse it, it will be deleted History." That's not my threat, after all, I'm an inclusionist. It's a wikipolitical reality. What if someone from the school administration watches the article and immediately reverts promotional material, perhaps something added by a student who wants their school to be seen as fat stuff. --Abd (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One more trite expression. Divide and conquer. There are two parties involved in the SEO problem. The SEO and their customer. If the customer web site gets globally blacklisted, if the Wikipedia article on the company gets deleted, the SEO has done a very poor job in serving the customer! The customer should know that, and the SEO isn't going to explain it to them! When we "punish" both of them, we keep them allied. I have no idea if the SEO has informed UofA as to what they have done. I'm not sure that an SEO is involved, the Uganda thing is a little mysterious. Adding the promotional fluff doesn't add links for search engine optimization. But if we can get the school on our side, which I think could be fairly easily done, there goes some of the funding for the SEO or web-promotional people. What remains would be a student wanting to promote their school, there will always be some level of that. Again, if the school is on our side, much easier to deal with. --Abd (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Squeaky clean. Referenced. Took out all the ugly tags at the top. It's notable, sufficiently. Accreditation pretty much seals it, and they truly are accredited. The UNESCO thing might be real or might be fluff, there is on-line chatter about it being misleading, but ... lots of on-line chatter is misleading, itself. UNESCO is somewhat associated with EADL, so there might be something there, but it didn't leap out at me. Maybe if the school administration calls me tomorrow they can clear it up and suggest a source. --Abd (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG

I assume that there will be multiple comments on this so I have replied on my talk page rather than here. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I normally assume response there, and assume it. Newbies may not, hence your general practice of responding on a user page also makes sense. Best, in my opinion, is the common practice of responding in situ, plus adding a note to the user page that you have responded with a link to your talk and the section header. Anyway, thanks again for your close. I think it is not technically correct, but that it is, in fact, the least disruptive action at this time, and is therefore quite sensible. If the RfC is filed, the MfD becomes moot. If not, and it is deleted, DRV might then be pursued. Hence your close is efficient, and shows good judgment, which is sometimes in short supply around here.

There has been some continued discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, 13 hours after your close, activated by JzG responding gratuitously to a neutral (or pro-Jzg! -- it included his nomination text) MfD notice I'd placed there. I suggested that the section be closed, and it was. I will be working on the RfC, but I'd really prefer to see someone neutral attempt to resolve the dispute. (Anyone who sees this and wants to know what the dispute is, see User:Abd/Notices#Request for mediation/intervention/warning for JzG re admin action while involved with article.)--Abd (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

regarding the whitelisting.

You are right, we could have whitelisted the one link as a token, I focussed a bit too much there on the 'it is just an external link, there is no hurry, and it is better to see if we can whitelist the whole domain'. As you can see, I have whitelisted all English language pages (the whitelisting may be a bit pointy in this way, but I hope/assume that it is a intermediate solution!). I think this will be a step forward, and again, sorry for the delay. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra. From the beginning of our discussions, I've noticed that you do turn around, given a little time and cogent argument. I still think your description of the history of the unfortunate Lyrik/User:Lyriker is warped. The user responded to warnings. At first, he attempted to satisfy the concerns in the warnings. You should realize that our guidelines do not clearly spell out what process is to be followed. On nl, Lyrik did provide argument. Not an expert user, he added comment to the wikitext, assuming that this would be seen by the editor who had removed a few links. Warned, yes. But his response was ignored. The IP edited last on 24th Jan 2008 to remove a link. It was a link that he had added, it had been removed by User:MER-C editing as IP, restored by another editor, and removed by Lyrik, who was starting that day to remove links from de.wikipedia, as I recall, and I don't know about other wikis. Warned, complied with warning with discussion, made one revert, I think, because the removing editor was not engaging in discussion, was warned again, added no more links after second warning. And was blocked five days later.

On en.wikipedia, the user stopped adding links upon warning, but was blocked anyway based on the name.

On de.wikipedia, user responded to warning -- which was far friendlier than I've seen elsewhere, actually helpful -- stopped adding links, as I recall, removed a whole pile of them, and was never blocked. But also stopped editing entirely, not from the de.wikipedia contact, but from, clearly, the response on en.wikipedia and at meta. The last contact from Lyriker was a plaintive request that lyrikline not be blocked because of his mistakes. "Nothing to discuss" was the admin's response. Beetstra, it may not have been intended, as such, but only because working with linkspam tends to foster a battleground mentality, with an "enemy." The needs of the work mean that discussing matters at length is impossible. The error here is in assuming that this discussion should be the responsibility of those working with the blacklist. The user may not have understood the suggestions about using the unblock template, or may have been so discouraged by that time, believing (with quite some good reason, perhaps) that it was hopeless, but still hoping for some MER-C for the web site he clearly considered very, very useful and appropriate.

The blacklist template should eventually be modified when it blocks a site to provide very clear instructions to how to appeal, usable by newbies. And that appeal process should be content-focused, toward restoring normal editorial process with just an extra step or so for links to sites which have been blacklisted for linkspam.

This would mean that blacklisting could become a bit faster, perhaps, because undoing the damage from inappropriate blacklisting would become more efficient as well. Less work for blacklist admins and volunteers, not more.

I have seen no evidence of COI from this user, the name does not indicate it. The editor is from Berlin, I think. Editor is an SPA on poetry. Unless he acknowledged connection with the site, however, the record doesn't show COI, simply an interest in poetry, hence the user name and the articles edited and the links added. COI, by itself, is not normally a reason to block, in any case, it is a reason to warn against COI edits to articles without support from other editors, and a block is only appropriate if the behavior continues. An emergency blacklist block, though, is fine. It might have been reasonable to short-block Lyriker, but indef was not proper. (Except that the admin thought the user name inappropriate. While I understand that, again, the problem is that when the error was pointed out to the admin, he refused to unblock. Linkage. I.e., this may have been weak, okay, but that means that my action was right. Point to that and the problems with it, and my guess is that another reason would be given. As I've written, this is very, very human. There is a basic principle operating, "I was right," even if the reason I gave wasn't the best.)

There are reasons you assert that could indicate continued global blacklisting for Lyrikline.org. However, I'd say, if inappropriate links do appear, they are not likely to appear in large numbers, and global blacklisting could always be restored if they do. My guess is that the blacklisting is preventing many more appropriate additions than it is preventing inappropriate ones. The only way to know is to delist and see what happens. Given that lyrikline.org is now effectively delisted (I'm not sure of the extent of it, exactly, until I look more closely; external links do not have to be in the language of the 'pedia, see WP:EL, it's merely preferred and procedure is given for linking to other languages.), we now have a basis for moving forward efficiently. The global issue can be addressed when we have a little more experience. As I recall, the copyright issue was raised and given as a reason for denying delisting, so the result might be different if we go back. However, I'd rather find consensus here first. One step at a time.

Thanks also for acknowledging that your not whitelisting the single link was an error. I did ask for it when you raised the larger issue. As you know, my tentative intention is to more clearly separate the whitelisting process from blacklisting/delisting, because, in theory, whitelisting should be much easier than delisting. Again and again, I've seen it said, when a blacklisting was questioned, "this isn't a problem because you can always request whitelisting." I've now followed a few such requests, and it is quite often far from easy. Consider the Stifle decline. I've seen many declines that were just as off. How many users would have been as persistent as I, and would have known how to proceed beyond a denial? Blacklist admins should really be hands-off whitelist requests except to grant them. If not for your argument on AN, it's quite possible that some admin would have just popped in to add the whitelist. Your argument, as I wrote, made it appear that there was some serious disagreement. But you have now totally made up for all that, and I'm quite grateful. Could hardly be better.

As to the "hands off to decline" proposal, if we can't get admin volunteers to "staff it," it's pretty harmless. Non-admins could close such discussions if they sit there for too long. Or they can just sit there and be defacto declined. All that a requestor then would have to do is find any established editor to close the discussion. Part of the close would be a request to an admin who agrees to look at such closures and normally implement them. That's much easier than getting an admin to watch all the traffic! I am talking about specific link whitelistings, site whitelistings are more dangerous, and it's even possible that this should be a separate page, so that appropriate caution is followed.

What I see for the process is that whitelisting a link would require a request from an autoconfirmed editor. I.e., the page would be semiprotected. The Talk page for the project page would not be protected, that's where IP editors, etc., could make a request. Then it would require at least one support comment. If considered noncontroversial, the supporting editor could close it and made the request of an admin, if not an admin. If in doubt, or if there is contention, then there would be a close as normal. If there is a backlog, non-admins might be allowed to close: for an non admin to effectively close would require the cooperation of an admin willing to implement it. Admin close would be marked "Done." Non-admin close would be marked "Recommended," and then "Done" either by the admin implementing, or by any other editor with a link to the actual whitelist entry. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No longer would blacklist admins be presented with regular temptations to merely confirm earlier blacklist actions without unbiased consideration of the specific whitelisting requested. There is a very human tendency to make up arguments, or to accept weak arguments, that confirm prior actions, even where the actions previously didn't depend on those arguments. The whitelist page could also recommend delisting or site-wide whitelisting, but because this can interfere with blacklist work, I'd see that a close with those conclusions would then go to the blacklist page for review, as some kind of community recommendation, unless the closer is an admin and knowledgeable about the needs of the blacklist, in which case it could be implemented immediately. (It's still undoable, of course.) Sound good?

Requiring that a link be necessary is too high a standard for a specific link. It should be enough that it is reasonable to propose as a link in an specific article, the whitelisting discussion should merely reject links for which there is no reasonable basis. People send me mail that I don't need, and I don't consider it spam unless it's mass-mailed and without regard for my needs. I.e., is Spam! I may delete it immediately, but I don't add it to my spam filter. (I get about 600 spams a day.) What has happened is that, with existing practice, some of the blacklist admins end up making content decisions. But admins aren't supposed to make content decisions, they are not supposed to have any superior powers in that regard, except for certain exceptions: BLP, clear copyvio, article deletions, etc. When an article deletion is contested, then the community decides, not simply a single admin without community process, and even the decision of the single closing admin can be challenged at DRV and, rarely, beyond that.

And thanks again.--Abd (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some points of response:

• The editor is connected to the site, it is not only true he is from Berlin, he is connected to "Literaturbruecke Berlin", (translation: "Literature bridge Berlin"), that in combination with the username Lyrik/Lyriker makes the connection only stronger. The proof is not in where the editor is from, or his username, but the combination. As I pointed out, our proof sometimes comes also from off-wiki information. It can range to a whole set of things, users using IPs connected to a company or organisation (this case), users who use usernames clearly linking them to the organisation (we had a museum like this, the user was also hard-stopped but continued to discuss), users using usernames which are mentioned on the pages linked to (we had a (web)marketing and communications worker from a library who never got it), people who start adding strange sets of links in a purely promotional way (and often can't resist to also promote their own SEO company), editors jumping through loopholes using only open proxy IPs, etc. etc. That you don't see the proof does not mean that it is there, and not been looked at. Here the username is just a hint, but it may be mistaken, but the rest of the proof ties it more to the user. Believe me, he is connected in this case, and the block is then indeed based on the name (but not only on the name). And there the blocking policy is clear about promotional usernames, {{spamusernameblock}} is a standard built-in block in the settings because of that. And the block template left on his talkpage, if read properly, is also clear there. I again note, that we can't always publish the link on-wiki (that would be a violation of WP:BLP), and if the link is NOT true when the username strongly suggests it, then the block is even more appropriate, as it suggests impersonation. There is a post on my talkpage at the moment for a website where the owner says 'we certainly did not do it ..', still it happened).
• Opening the whitelist to autoconfirmed editors is not a perfect plan (it would be nice), there are spam accounts who do 2 edits which are appropriate, wait for months, and then start spamming. They know what we look for and just escape it, spammers are not stupid. It might however be a 'controllable problem', as soon as you see such an edit to the whitelist, one could revert it. If it becomes vandalism, you just block it up for a couple of hours to admin level.
• As I said, complete detachement from blacklisting would only get my support if there are sufficient editors active there who realy know why things get blacklisted (and also follow off-wiki tracks). But help, also from non-admins, is there welcome. And the new abuse-filter may make it better to open up things (or even, maybe we don't have to blacklist). XLinkBot also does quite some good work here.

I am glad this is resolved now, let us move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The overall issues are not resolved. Now, as to "opening the whitelist to autoconfirmed editors," it may not have been understood. It was an opening to them simply to propose whitelisting. Not to grant it! That would still be an admin function. Admins surely could look at the "credentials" of editors who support a whitelisting; I'd think it would be routine. Admins would know regulars who work the request page, and wouldn't need to look up credentials for requests approved by a known, responsible editor.

Once again, Dirk, you seem to be confusing the blacklisting requirements with whitelisting requirements, particularly for specific-page whitelists. If there is concern about specific pages, obviously, those with the experience in blacklisting evidence may want to comment. However, linkspamming adds content. Linkspamming properly triggers blacklist ops, and you have quite correctly noted that good links can be linkspammed. But we do not exclude good content based on the legitimacy of its original addition. That text was inserted by a banned user is irrelevant in process to determine inclusion. I.e., banned user edits article. Edit is properly reverted on recognition. Another editor puts it back. The new editor is now responsible for it, as if it had never been inserted by the banned editor. I've been through this one, there was a very good editor who was also erratic in certain ways and who got banned (I'd argue that this was unfair, but the guy also made it easy for it to happen). He'd make edits with various sock puppets, and the edits in article space were often quite good and useful, and so I'd put them back in, and I was dragged to AN/I over it. Precedent is clear, however.

For purposes of determining the legitimacy of a specific link in a specific article, linkspam and COI evidence is moot, and this point seems to be consistently overlooked in these discussions.

I would much rather see bot-reversion of certain links, with a ready "appeal" process for specific articles.

Basically, Dirk, content should be King, not spamfighting; it's fine to make fighting spam efficient, but not at the expense of legitimate content, and the possible COI of Lyrik is truly irrelevant to legitimacy of content, once the edits have been reviewed by independent editors. --Abd (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I started adding links to lyrikline.org in articles where (1) I'd proposed it with no negative comment appearing, or (2) there was already a reference to lyrikline.org but not a link. What I found were two or three articles where Lyrikline was the source for the material in the article, or at least some of it. In other words, Dirk, the blacklisting was interfering with links necessary for satisfying WP:RS. My guess is that many more such links were attempted, and abandoned because of the blacklisting. This is making the point about blacklisting interfering with content, about the need for balance. Right now I'm giving personal priority to establishing an accepted body of links or references to Lyrikline.org, and where I will move next isn't clear to me. I'm finding that the whitelisting is actually quite thorough, so far every link I've tried works. I may next proceed to articles where the link was inserted by User:Lyriker and then removed. I'll review each of these for appropriateness, and will place notice on the Talk page for the article if I decide I want to insert the link. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link Spamming

Please don't reintroduce external link spamming into Wikipedia, as you did here. The comment did not in any way belong onthe talk page, and it's been added inappropriately on several pages by that user. It's hard enough to fight spam without good users endorsing it. Cheers. Phil153 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was in the middle of editing that addition to poke out the link. I certainly didn't "endorse it," stop that nonsense, please. I'll check out the other additions, and if this is accurate (it certainly may be), I'll leave it out. The editor (and web site) talk about the experiment as "cold fusion," but the web page says "Sonoluminescence Cold Fusion," which is an oxymoron, and I pointed that prolem out in an edit, besides the fact that if there was enough helium generated that the experimenter experienced "asphyxia," the editor wouldn't, in fact, have any difficulty breathing, because there is no breathing problem when one is vaporized. I certainly wasn't going to edit war over this! But I prefer to treat new editors, even if they reek of POV and spam, with AGF. I'll check it out. Thanks for your attention to Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor has a history of adding external numerous external links inappropriately, he even added that link to the cold fusion article. Such behavior should be discouraged rather than reintroduced after another editor removes it. I understand that you may have a more lenient view. Phil153 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens, perhaps. The user is the web site owner, see the name at the bottom of the web page, and see the editor's first edit. So definitely the editor shouldn't be adding the link or coverage of what's on the site to any article, that's a violation of WP:COI. However, COI does allow editors to make suggestions or place queries on Talk pages. I'd disagree that the comment "didn't belong." The editor is under the illusion that the experiment has something to do with Cold fusion, an error that is easily corrected, but not if discussion isn't allowed. Removing comments from Talk pages, so quickly, chills discussion, damages the necessary sense of a welcoming community, and needlessly alienates editors and the public, there should be strong reason for it, and as soon as one other editor objected, let alone two, that should have been the end of it. As it stands now, I'm weighing whether it's worth pursuing this. If I follow WP:DR for every problem I see, I'd be doing nothing but DR process, and it's bad enough already. I will comment on User talk:Minhducthandan and let the editor know about WP:COI.

Your comment here explicitly indicated that this link had been added. There were no edits from this account in 2008, so you are presenting ancient history as if it indicated present behavior. Phil, you jumped to conclusions, reverted, and complained about my behavior, without taking the time to become accurately informed. We need less of that, not more. Please consider taking a deep breath before you jump in and revert and accuse me of "endorsing" linkspam. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

for references, first edit, in 2006, gives real name, and the web site (see reverted edit linked above by Phil) shows name at bottom of page. I have warned the editor about COI. --Abd (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, generally it's true that other user's comments shouldn't be removed. But WP:TALK makes it very clear that comments unrelated to improving the article on an article's talk page can be removed by anyone. It's even posted prominently at the top of pages. Now, even I agree that it shouldn't generally be done for off topic comments either. But all that goes out the window when the user's post is clear and obvious spam containing external links, AND the user has a history of repetitively spamming external links [14][15][16][17] (I checked before reverting you). I think your interpration of policy in this instance is wrong, hence the post here. To my way of thinking we have to discourage such spamming as much as possible, and use a little clue in the process. I can't see any possible "chilling effect" arising out of removing posts from drive by editors containing external links, with no discussion of the article and no possibility of improving it. Spammers have it easy enough as it is without us helping them. Nice job on the website sleuthing! Phil153 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was no "help" to a spammer here, I was in the middle of removing the http:// when you reverted me. Your description of the history doesn't seem to notice that I looked at the history. Those were all very old edits, and it's not clear at all that the old edits were spamming. Inappropriate, they may have been -- I haven't checked. But new editors -- and old, clearly inexperienced editors should be considered as new -- shouldn't be treated as "spammers" and rudely rejected. A simple, brief, civil, and helpful answer to the post -- with the link left as a domain name but not actually a link, hence no search engine effect -- would have been in order. Now, for most purposes, leaving the note on the user's Talk page, where it serves as a warning, but a gentle and non-threatening one, and which also addresses the users possible legitimate concerns, does no harm, doesn't encourage spamming, but, from my perspective, builds a reputation of the project as a welcoming place, where cooperation is offered and expected.

Now, good chance the user doesn't respond positively, even with this approach. In which case, you know what will happen. The user's Talk page is now watched by me. I get busy and might miss it, but if the user starts up true linkspamming -- which would be more than one edit to a single article and it's Talk page! -- it will not be missed, and the prior gentle warning will speed up the process, not slow it down. Nothing has been lost. Except one thing. If the post had been left in Talk, the error the user made, confusing sonofusion with cold fusion, is a common one. (Same thing with piezofusion, or other fusion that involves generating a high potential field that accelerates deuterons. It's high-energy fusion, not cold fusion, which, if it works, characteristically takes place at low energies. Hence "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." But, note, it is not impossible that some process inside the lattice gives deuterons high energy. I think, though, that the radiation signature, in that case, would match that of hot fusion. --Abd (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

leaving those comments can actually do harm, as people also learns by imitation: new visitors will see those comments and assume that it's ok to add them, so they will add their own. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no "help" to a spammer here, I was in the middle of removing the http:// when you reverted me.

For anyone reading this, I reverted 24 minutes [18] after Abd's reversion of LeadSongDog. It's a remarkable coincidence that I reverted when you were "in the middle" of a 20 second removal of the link 24 minutes after your reinsertion of the spam link. Phil153 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have kids, two very active girls, 5 and 7, and I was (and still am) taking care of them. They have a tendency to demand attention when I'm "in the middle" of something. I was not merely removing the link, I was replying to the editor, with a comment similar to what I eventually put on the editor's Talk page.

Phil, you have two choices: apologize for implying a deceptive comment on my part, or leave my Talk page and don't come back. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point. "Can be removed" isn't the same as "should be removed." When there are two editors involved, consenting to the comment, and even more if there are three, insisting on removal can become disruptive. No problem with the original removal by Enric Naval. A little bit of a problem with the insistent removal by LSD. And much more problem with your removal. Much more time was wasted than would have been involved in simply leaving it there with, yes, the link spiked, so that editors could find it, but not so that it accomplishes any linkspamming motive. --Abd (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, spam should be removed. Drive by spamming of an article and then the talk page, with no discussion of content, to a site that editor controls is something 90% of editors would consider obvious and desirable removal. We can do a straw poll if you'd like. Phil153 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider the comment in question to be discussion of article content, as I think I explained already on the talk page. I've replied to it on that basis. I think it's far better to explain to new editors why their material is not being accepted than to just delete it. Just deleting it could give them the impression that Wikipedia is a battleground, possibly leading to their using sockpuppets and whatever other methods they can think up to carry out their side of the battle, or going away and telling all their friends how biassed Wikipedia is. I think a comment like that on the talk page, plus a reply explaining why the comment is out of place, would tend to discourage rather than encourage others from posting similar comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point there. Pointing them to WP:RS and maybe WP:NOTFORUM would have been a better move. The combination of adding the link also to article + posting in a totally incorrect section (as opposed to posting at the top of the page or at the end of the last section like most new editors do) must have made me delete it directly. Indeed, I didn't even post an explanation on his talk page :( ) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, Enric. One of the things I was doing when I found it had been taken out again by Phil was moving it to a new section of its own that referred as well to the (properly) removed link from the article. I'm not thrilled that the other editor who put it back in didn't attend to that, but perhaps he also was distracted. It happens. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copper, if the editor didn't have a contrib history involving multiple spam additions which he edit warred over, or had previously said anything at all at the cold fusion page, or had mentioned the article at all in his post, I'd agree. As it is this is textbook spam. Phil153 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor assumed that his experiment was about cold fusion. The editor also put the same link in the article, and was reasonably -- if incorrectly -- attempting to explain why he thought it relevant, i.e, he's tried what he thought was "cold fusion" and, supposedly, "it worked." Sure, it was ... off, in more ways than one. But every person who edits here should be assumed, at first, to have a motive of assisting with the project. I haven't reviewed the detailed edit history, but I've seen enough to know that the description above by Phil is biased. Does Phil mention that the edit history was in 2007? That there were no actual warnings for edit warring, only a very gentle notice about him "keeping adding a link to an article"? I'll say this, the profile is not that of a true spammer.

(ec; to Enric Naval:) Understandable. Plus, the user speaks English as a second language, which added to the overall oddness of the comment.

to Phil153: And how do we respond to textbook spam? I'm not arguing that it was or was not spam; I'm saying that it's better to explain to the user why the material is inappropriate, i.e. tell them what the rules are. First very polite warning; second firmer warning and so on, similarly as for vandalism. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and Abd has graciously taken care of that. How do we respond to spam, even well intentioned spam? We remove it, and then inform the user. Not warn the user and leave it there. Phil153 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Spam" on a talk page is a bit different than spam in an article. Spam can be delinked easily while still allowing discussion. Ironically, as an example, lenr-canr.org was blacklisted partly due to alleged linkspam which consisted of text that wasn't links )Rothwell's title, "librarian, lenr-canr.org." I can point to lenr-canr.org or pages on lenr-canr.org, and the blacklist has no effect. It only detects and prevents actual linking, which requires http://.

The link on the article page was completely removed, properly so, and the associated text was clearly irrelevant there. But reverting an editor without discussion on a Talk page is a tad rude, unless you are going to ABF, which used to be a policy violation, and I think we lost something when we decided it was unenforceable. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil153, you stated in your warning to Abd at the beginning of this thread that "The comment did not in any way belong on the talk page". Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I disagree with that statement: I believe the comment was intended as an argument about why certain material should be included in the article, and as such was quite relevant on that talk page. It follows that Abd's re-adding of the comment was, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable. In general, mentioning a link on an article talk page as part of an argument as to why that link should be included in the article is normal and not usually considered spam, and an opinion that the link is inappropriate for inclusion in the article doesn't transform it into spam, but into a comment to be argued against.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone had mentioned "spamming" nor presented evidence of such until after Abd had reverted the comment back onto the talk page. All Abd did was revert the removal of a talk page comment when the removal had cited a guideline re personal attacks and the comment didn't look at all like a personal attack: a perfectly reasonable action which doesn't require one to "endorse" the comment in any way. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

European Association for Distance Learning

Can you come up with anything to establish this organization's notability. I tried but had no luck -- see my comments on the talk page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Like A.B., I can't find evidence of notability for EADL. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My discussion is there. --Abd (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, could you please sign your comments at Talk:European Association for Distance Learning? I think it would look better for you to sign them than for someone else to add an "unsigned" template. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the inconvenience. However, I don't give a fig about how it looks if someone else signs for me. I make mistakes, forget to sign. In other words, I don't mind if someone else adds the sig, but I also don't like that this causes them inconvenience, so it's fine to remind me. --Abd (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta

I appreciate your positive message on my talk page, but I have serious misgivings about the article. The DETC accreditation provides some validation and that short article in DETC's newsletter does provide some 3rd-party sourcing. However, I have concluded that there is a far more complicated story that is not documented, and that leads me to think that the current article is seriously flawed. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The current article is very short, and, to my knowledge, the fluff has been removed. If there is something problematic there, you are welcome to take it out per WP:BRD. Please be specific about "flawed." I'm quite aware of controversy (or defamatory comment) about this school; however, my opinion is that we should have a solid article, even if it is a stub. UofA exists, and A.B.'s claims that it isn't accredited may be based on a biased view of regional vs. national accreditation, or was simply a mistake. If there isn't enough left after stubbing, then the article could be AfD'd, but please don't AfD an article with "serious flaws," i.e., unverifiable content. Remove it first.

I am aware of one possible flaw. The material in the DETC newsletter was obviously contributed by UofA. However, that doesn't change the fact that DETC would be responsible for any serious errors in that coverage, and that it is thus reasonably neutral and independent. There is also the history of the article, it was clearly begun by someone from UofA (though it might have been a student) and there may be SEO involvement (perhaps with the IP edit warring recently?). But that's irrelevant to the present content. Thanks for your work on the article.

As to notability, you are aware that my position is that accreditation by a recognized accrediting agency like DETC establishes notability, on the face of it. Because of A.B.'s claims of lack of accreditation, I reviewed DETC to verify that it was, indeed, recognized, by CHEA. Also, as a result of this, I took out the mention of CHEA from the article, since it was really redundant, i.e., made UofA look like it had two accreditations instead of one.

One possible source is hinted. CHEA apparently maintains information on accreditation applications of schools pending at its recognized agencies. Internet archives of that site might show when and by whom accreditation was requested. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost spooky how little third-party information exists about this university. It's not even listed in directories. That, coupled with the fact that a fundamental topic such as its history cannot be documented through reliable sources, makes me uncomfortable about the existence of the article. (BTW, CHEA is not a source for details regarding individual schools.) --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over their staff "selected publications", and at least for my field, its nearly all resume filler material - "forthcoming", WSEAS, World Multiconf, "Ph.D. Proposals" - nothing that would be accepted for a real academic evaluation. This is not a serious education facility - either it's a degree mill, or its a complete scam, or, possibly, both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The paucity of information is almost certainly due to the newness, 2008. It is apparently a continuation of Barrington University (or represents a purchase of assets and enrollments, etc., from Barrington, it's not clear to me which it is). Yes, CHEA isn't a source for information about individual schools, I only mentioned it to establish the credibility of the accrediting agency, DETC. Now, Stephan, calling a school a "degree mill,... or complete scam,... or both" is libel, isn't it? It's accredited, Stephan, so you are also impugning the accrediting agency, DETC? Is your purpose here improvement of the project? How? What, specifically, do you propose, or is this just a drive-by nasty comment without any foundation? Orlady was involved in improving the article, what's your purpose? If Orlady thinks the school non-notable, AfD would be the standard process, though I've stated my position above.

Just to warn against jumping to conclusions from shallow research, I found UofA listed on a Michigan government page of "Colleges and Universities not accredited by CHEA," document dated June 16, 2008. I'm not sure what the accreditation date was, but it was in 2008. It's "accredited by CHEA," so to speak: as noted above, CHEA does not accredit, but recognizes accreditation agencies, and so you can find UofA on the CHEA web site. I removed the National Advisory Board material from the article, indeed, I removed most material from the article; in the case of the Board, it was because I found not one notable expert there. That doesn't make them not a legitimate university, merely a minor one. I checked all this stuff, with probably more thoroughness than the article deserved.

Note that the DETC web site says that UofA was "founded in 1991." This would refer to Barrington University, which apparently began the accreditation process. For the accrediting procedure, see http://www.detc.org/theaccrediting.html), see also http://www.detc.org/downloads/2007%20DETC%20Accreditation%20Overview.pdf

From http://www.detc.org/downloads/2007_facts_about_detc.pdf

How Difficult is it to Earn the DETC Seal?

Approximately 1 out of 3 applicants eventually earns DETC accreditation. In the period 2001-2006, out of more than 100 new applications, only 36 new institutions were accredited; 3 institutions had accreditation withdrawn by DETC and 13 others resigned.

It appears that what commonly happens is an initial application is denied, but DETC describes the process as "collegial." I.e., when they deny an application, they say why it was denied, and the goal is to help an institution meet the standards. There are actually substantial requirements that must be met before the application will even be accepted for review. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Initimidation

I read "ArbComm is watching, Phil" as a nasty attempt at intimidation. This is not worthy of you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbComm is watching me. It's a basic, and very old principle. Assume it. And if it is uncivil to remind editors of that in a situation where POV-pushing has resulted in topic bans, well, ArbComm is watching. I'm quite aware of it.

"Intimidation"? This is an experienced user. If what he's doing is fine, where is the intimidation? AGF, Stephan. It is just as you said, you "read" it as a "nasty attempt at intimidation." My comment doesn't threaten any action, it notes a passive situation. --Abd (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One quick comment: don't make references to "arbcomm is watching"[19] or "note the result for ScienceApologist"[20] (who was just topic-banned by Arbcomm). They will be invariably understood as veiled menaces, never mind how much you insist in that they aren't, so please stop doing them. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UofA.edu

I have blocked the 4 IPs that previously also turned UofA into an advertisement. I also blacklisted uofa.edu again, whitelisting and using the about page as the link. I would suggest that further links needed on this site should be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further links at this time. I'll review the situation regarding the blacklisting, but it's certainly not urgent. The article needs the link to the school web site, I'm unaware of any other need. All I'd ask is that if a reasonable request for specific page linking appears, from a legitimate editor apparently interested in improving the project, that it be given friendly consideration. That is probably the least disruptive approach. And thanks for the notice. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what happened. Unless there was linkspamming to other articles, I don't agree that blacklisting was necessary, but I'd put this way on the back burner. Blacklisting would not have prevented the fluff from being added to the article by that IP from Uganda, so it looks a tad punitive to me. If there is continual problem with this, semiprotection would be what I'd recommend. I any case, you noticed the problem editing before I did, and I do support the blocks, not to mention the removal of totally inappropriate material. I contacted the school by phone, I was told I'd get a call. No call came. Hence, I'm certainly not exercised to defend UofA against the blacklisting! I don't see much harm done by it at this time, but it could be revisited later, if there comes to be something worthy of note at the UofA web site. For now, I have better things to do, I'm lining up the ducks to add, perhaps, a few hundred links to lyrikline.org. Consulting the Wikiproject, of course! --Abd (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed not widescale, but the persistence is there. I considered protecting the page, but that does quite some harm as many editors can't help and improve the article (and as it is a stub, improvement is still needed!). Also, protecting this article may just force them to go somewhere else (will not stuff beans ..). Blocking the IPs does help a bit (blocking a /30 should not be too bad), though I expect, seen the persistence (XLinkBot did not help enough), that soon other IPs will pop up. Blacklisting is harsh, but hey, I did not hire the SEO, and as you contacted them and the vandalism persisted, maybe this does get the message through. Whatever we do, it disrupts process, and it is sometimes a difficult choice between us disrupting editing or them disrupting it. I think that this is the least disruptive solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the blacklist message says (where is it kept? I'd like to know anyway, if you do), but if an article is semiprotected because of this kind of nonsense, the semiprotection notice should inform IP editors that they can make suggestions on the Talk page, assuming that is not protected. I don't see a lot of activity on this page coming from other than this IP, and us, and when other articles are vandalized by IP, semiprotection is often used. As to "stub," there isn't a lot more RS out there on this school, people have been looking. A. B. has dug up some dirt about Barrington University, but I haven't actually seen RS connecting the two. (Though it's pretty obvious, and lots of substandard source for it.) --Abd (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The text is here MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. Also protection needs quite some abuse, and I made an evaluation which would in my opinion give the least disruption. In my opinion, this IP should not have much business editing this page (if we had the abuse filter, I would have used that .. but that is still future), but local IPs might be of help here. I expect that the IP will shift, but also that is waiting to be seen. Somehow, seen what gets dug up, what we have seen with this organisation (and the other organisations which triggered the first blacklisting), I don't think it will stop easily (but I indeed have no proof for that).

I left a note about notability on the talkpage. If this is all there is to tell, then the stub mark can go (it looks like a 'start' class to me anyway). Still not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for your advice. In regard to the web site. It's purely informative you will not see an adds nor anything that self promotion. The reason I post is . . . it works. And it benefits to MAN if the people know it. again thank you for your advice (with the right combination I got my hand burned by the hot water).

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhducthandan (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But "self promotion" here includes linking to your own web site. You can do it on a Talk page as a suggestion. However, you are dumping a lot of power into your cell, so of course it gets hot. What makes you think that this has anything to do with fusion? I have hot water in my basement. Not caused by fusion. I touch a car battery with a screwdriver across the terminals. Very hot. You put electrodes in water with something added to make it conduct, you dump additional power into it with ultrasound. To show fusion, you would have to show that the power generated was greater than the power put in. In any case, your web site is incorrect. Sonofusion, bubble fusion, isn't cold fusion, it's hot fusion. The idea is that it gets very hot in those collaping bubbles, like millions of degrees, allegedly, hot enough to cause deuterium to fuse.

I've seen youtube videos showing what is supposedly a cold fusion experiment. The experimenter cranks up the voltage on a cell until the cell is lit up with the heat generated. So? That is not a demonstration of cold fusion at all. It's a demonsration of the heat you can generate using electricity.

If you are genuinely interested in cold fusion, it's possible to run the latest experiments at home, and they allegedly produce some heat plus radiation (short-range but detectable). Look for the SPAWAR work, look for web pages by Kowalski, who reproduced the experiment, he's a physics instructor without a heavy-duty lab, and it doesn't require much equipment to reproduce the results. If it works (I think it does, and I might even bet on it, but that's another story. It's certainly not generally accepted yet.). But this work is nowhere near practical heat generation, even though parts of it have been patented (patent actually issued) for that. Look also for the Galileo project, where the editor of newenergytimes.com attempted to coordinate experimenters to verify the SPAWAR results with a uniform experiment. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I know you call it hot fusion, but I'm not convinced that that's either a fact or a generally accepted definition. Fast-moving particles don't necessarily have to be described as hot. They have energy, but it doesn't have to be called heat energy: it could be called kinetic energy. What if you have a glass of water on a very-fast-moving spaceship: would you call it hot just because of the velocity? Would it be seen as being at different temperatures from different frames of reference? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When we are talking particles, indeed, heat is only a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. Fast particles are, in this sense, hot. Sonofusion is hot, which was the point. The point is relative velocity. That is, you have two deuterons. Do they have a relative velocity? Low velocity = low temperature fusion, if they fuse. High velocity = they can fuse, if it is high enough. Could be two particles, could be many. Temperature is of concern only as much as it represents the average maximum approach velocity in the gas (if it's hot enough for hot fusion, it's a gas or a plasma).

There are other forms of hot fusion that are sometimes called "cold" because they can be done with small devices, desktop. But they aren't cold fusion, not even close. They involve accelerating deuterons to high velocities. That's the exact same mechanism as the rest of what we call hot fusion. Brute force, kinetic energy, overcomes the Coulomb barrier. Cold fusion has to involve something completely different. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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" [21]. 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[22][23](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 [24],. 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)