User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

List of nucleic acid simulation software

Sorry, I reverted your correction. Unfortunately your version introduced incorrect blue links.

Also, it seems to me that the application of the rules of WP: NOTLINK in this case incorrect. Notable does not mean - "in the existing article on Wikipedia". These links have the same value, irrespective of whether there was a paper on these programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Formally, you're right. But how users will find references? (P99am (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

JzG RFC

You state that you "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" with JzG. There is not a diff listed of your attempt to resolve the dispute. Could you please show where you "tried and failed to resolve the dispute," please? Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confuded enric. You certify the RFC and then endorse the section saying that Abd should be sanctioned for not letting go of the argument with Guy. Am I missing something or are these actions trully contradictory? I'd also like to second Hipocrite's request for you to evidence a proper attempt to resolve the dispute with Guy. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was a little confused myself. However, he did certify it, prior to the move to WP space. If he were to withdraw the certification, or were it to be impeached, I expect another would appear within a day or less. I had prior commitments to it, but I didn't canvass when opening the RfC, you can tell by the pile-on! I did not list him in the editors who had attempted to resolve, and I haven't yet notified all those editors, though I could (as editors mentioned in the RfC). Should I do this? I'll say this, I did not ask for Enric's certification and did not expect it.

Technically, once the RfC has been declared certified and comment has begun, attempting to stop it based on defect in certification could be problematic, the community has, for example, required an improper AfD to remain open because it had attracted significant comment. To me the question is generally "what is the least disruptive way to address the issue." --Abd (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, sorry, I saw your request today and then I forgot, I'll go find some diffs or links to sections (one thing, by the way, "certifying" the dispute does not mention that I endorse how it was presented by the RfC creator. There is a section right below called "Other users who endorse this statement" for users who both certify the dispute and endorse how it was presented by the RfC creator.) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Abd an incorrectly certified RFC is very easy to deal with after 48 hours - even if one of the original certifiers withdraws or is later shown to be unqualified to certify. It gets deleted and if you don't like it you can raise the matter at DRV.

@Enric, I'm sorry but I don't know how familiar you are with RFCs but certifying the RFC means that you are endorsing the comments of Abd, the section below for those endorsing the RFC is for those not engaged who agree with the premise of the RFC. Are you sure that you want to be associated so closely with this nonsense? No pressure if you do wish to continue being associated of course but some diffs would be useful to evidence your attempts to resolve the issue. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

About demonstrating my involvement, I put some diffs below, do I need to finish finding all the diffs or does that show enough that I tried to solve the dispute?

You are right in that I am also endorsing the request, I had the wrong idea..... However... if I take out my signature then the RfC will be deleted. This could make Abd and other users think that Abd's statements weren't listened to because of his "oponents" abusing some technicality. Should I just use the second point at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Guidelines and post "an additional individualized view to clarify [my] opinion" or is my dispute too different from Abd's? Could you give me advice, I don't know what to do :P --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you genuinely feel your dispute with guy is different to Abd's then you shouldn't really certify this RFC as its a separate issue entirely and RFCs should be focused on one issue. If Abd cant find another person to certify the RFC then it simply shows to reasonable editors that they don't have a leg to stand on. If you look at Abd's talk page you will see that they are already misrepresenting the endorsements to support their own view on this and completely ignoring the support for Abd to disengage so I honestly doubt that anything we or you do will not end up fuelling Abd's sense of injustice on this matter. The issue is going to be resolved one way or the other shortly as, if they don't stop this drama mongering shortly, I'm going to seek that topic ban against Abd at ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

diffs

• Argued with Jed and tried to get him banned weeks before JzG banned him (link to complaints in Talk:Cold fusion and my WP:AE petition here, which was closed as Jenochman)
• jed was banned partially thanks to my efforts to prod him over his OR and disrepect for WP:V and WP:RS. I think that those discussions made clear for other editors what POV was being pushed by Jed, and helped to create a consensus later that Jed's ban was adequate
• After Jed was banned, I tried to defuse the dispute over the fairness of Jed's ban:

• Told GoRight and Abd that JzG had made nothing wrong and repeated to them several times to go appeal the ban to the adequate places instead of filling Talk:Cold fusion with complaints, also told GoRight that there was no requirement to list the ban under WP:Editing restrictions, which meant that the ban was not invalid for that reason and that JzG had done nothing wrong [1][2][3][4][5]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=267027247&oldid=266905173]

• Fought with Abd about him restoring comments that Jed made after his topic ban

• Removing Jed's comment after Abd had replied[6]. To make a long story short, Jed posted, someone reverted, Abd reverted back, Abd replied, I removed Jed's post, Abd reverted it back "do not remove Talk comments that have been responded to"[7], I pick yet another fight with him about Jed's ban being unfair
• went to Abd's talk page to argue about the removals, including advising him to make a RfC [8][9][10]

• I made a statement in JzG's request to the Arbcom (link here)
• I insisted to Abd several times that he dropped his evidence page against JzG, and then I told him to convert the page into a RfC and fill it (diffs here)
• I participated in the MfD for Abd's evidence page, asking him to make a RfC already [11][12]
• I told JzG to stop replying to Abd's posts in Talk:Cold fusion [13]
• I participated on the discussion of the blacklisting of lanr-canr.org (diffs here) and requested whitelisting for 3 different links in that website, in order to show Abd that blacklisting wasn't really a problem because you could whitelist specific links (1 whitelist accepted, 1 rejected, 1 dropped by me after being pointed out some problems with the source) (links to requests here)

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, should you conclude that your certification was an error, you can withdraw it. Because your certification was considered effective, the RfC was immediately moved to the certified section instead of standing, waiting certification. If you withdraw, my opinion is that the RfC should be moved back to the uncertified section and the clock restarted. To conclude otherwise would allow someone to demolish an RfC by certifying falsely, then withdrawing it after 48 hours. No, the RfC should have a 48 hour opportunity to gain certification. This might all become moot if someone else certifies. Question? Can people comment in an RfC before certification? Opinion: the named editor responded and discussion began. In legal process, an appearance on a subpoena renders moot argument against the legality of the subpoena. It's wikilawyering, in short, to argue defect after the process has begun with response from the named editor. However, I'm going to go meditate on WP:DGAF for a bit, or maybe edit some totally unrelated articles. Yes, Enric, you did ask me to make an RfC, as did others, including others off-line. And, no, they were not banned editors, the banned editors I communicate with occasionally think that Wikipedia is a total waste of time. They might be right, but not only have I not given up, I see lots of light at the end of the tunnel. You are welcome to explore that with me.

As to the demonstration that blacklisting wasn't a problem, imagine the impact on the project if every link had to go through that process, which took, what, weeks? For one link? The blacklist is used to control content according to the opinion of a few participating administrators; the blacklist guidelines are being violated, but ... I only take on one small project at a time, and fixing the blacklisting problem is not simple, it requires new process, and that does not happen overnight anymore. Most editors are completely unaware of how blacklisting works; the large majority of blacklistings are perfectly appropriate, but there are a few exceptions, and they can cause quite a bit of disruption. There was no legitimate reason for blacklisting lenr-canr.org, none, and I'm quite sure that if that blacklisting were appealed up through WP:DR, it would fail. There is even less reason for blacklisting newenergytimes.com (linkspamming was at least alleged for lenr-canr.org, but not for NET). "Fringe" is not a legitimate reason for blacklisting, period. It is a reason to deprecate a source, but not to prohibit links, the blacklist does not only affect articles, it affects Talk pages and WP space, etc. It's silly that the two most useful sources for further research into Cold fusion on the web, mentioned many times in reliable source as such, are blacklisted. Why? You know why. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I already withdrawed. Dunno about when the 48 hours start counting; I was already wrong with the certification thing, so I would probably be wrong too with this. I'll let editors with more experience with RfCs sort that out.

About blacklisting in talk page... you can use the "nowiki" tags, and Deejstra has given you a more complete explanation elsewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich

Hi Enric, regarding your recent edit to Wilhelm Reich, [14] it's best not to copy material from sources word for word, unless you're quoting and citing them in the text, as in "X writes that ..." A summary of what they say, in your own words, is the ideal thing, unless the quote is an important or distinctive one. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. I have to work more in these things. I am aware that this is a copyright violation, but I still manage to fall back into doing this once in a while :( I'll take more care in avoiding it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement at RFAR

I'm impressed by the good sense and clear expression displayed in your statement at the Request for arbitration related to New Rochelle and Jvolkblum. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all :) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Contested prods

Chile–Romania relations and Armenia–Chile relations have been restored after their proposed deletion was contested. Hiding T 11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied in your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Call signs

thanks for the reminders my friend --Hokainsultin (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

C-PTSD

thank you for guarding this page--Ziji (talk email) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

prods on foreign relation articles

I have unfortunately removed the prods from the foreign relations articles that were up for a mass afd last week, I wasn't contesting them and most are completely odd an non-notable but per WP:PROD if an article has had an afd in the past it may not be prodded. Regards -Marcusmax(speak) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Chile relations

I'm not sure I can help you. I'm more or less a monoglot anglophone. I did a bit of searching but couldn't find anything about this in English. WilyD 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander the Great image

Can you please tell me what's going on there? Seems like an edit war, maybe pov pushing, but I don't understand it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD Edit

Hi, I hope you don't mind I corrected a spelling in your post on the List of PS AfD, as I needed to make a dummy edit and couldn't work out how to do it without changing something. Best, Verbal chat 15:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

no problemo --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Removals of coat of arms of Kosovo

(Assuming good faith) Yes, I am completely aware of the Kosovo probation, but I dare say you may not be fully aware of the nature of the Kosovo dispute: this is NOT the "coat of arms of Kosovo". You've correctly asserted that I'm on a "campaign" to remove this coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo from templates that talk about Kosovo as a whole. I do not and did not try to hide it. I merely made comments on two seperate talkpages which spiraled on into two debates.
I do not think this matter requires to be discussed on WT:MOSFLAG because it deals specifically with Kosovo. I'm not trying to establish a new "standard" or guideline, because Kosovo is a completely and incomparably unique case.

I've stated and restated my arguments over and over again on the two talkpages, but here they are again in a nutshell (please bear with me):
The reason a Coat of Arms can not be used for Kosovo is simply because Kosovo itself is not a country (see article for the current consensus definition). It is a "region" or "territory" with no coat of arms of its own. The coat of arms currently used in the template(s) is that of an entity within Kosovo itself which claims but does not have control over all of the "region". Even if that entity was not disputed at all (and boy is it!), a template referring to the entire region cannot be represented by a coat of arms of only one faction within that region. It is incorrect geographically, politically, and it is biased POV. Hence, it is against policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It was my impression that violations of policy do not need consensus to be repaired? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're either ignoring my point or failing to give it thought. Kosovo does not have a coat of arms. "Kosovo" is not a common name for the Republic of Kosovo. "Kosovo" is a "common name" for a disputed region. If you have a proper look, you'll find that Ev agrees with my argument completely on Template:History of Kosovo. The "failure to achieve consensus" as you call it, is a vague discussion in which not a single user actually discussed the legitimate reasons I've listed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You find my arguments "unconvincing"? First of all, forgive me if I do not consider the arguments refuted at all simply by that statement. Second, what is there to convince? The consensus on Wikipedia is that "Kosovo" is a region. If I have failed to convince you there, I repeat that you may simply have a look at the consensus on the carefully monitored Kosovo article. This region has no coat of arms. What is there to convince? This is simple logic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You edit and reintroduce the version of the template you prefer, you avoid any proper discussion, and then "win the argument" by petitioning for a block with little or no grounds by misleading the Admin. (And you've yet to back your assertion that "there is no violation of WP:NPOV".) Now I see why you've virtually ignored my last two posts. You may want to know I've just ceased to "assume good faith". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So you think I've been lying to you, and that I didn't know about that infobox? Here it is in the plainest imaginable terms: That is NOT an infobox for Kosovo itself. That is an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo. I repeat: the two are by NO MEANS the same.

You will also find there the infobox of the other of the two "entities" which exist there: the UN administration, which represents the Serbian enclaves which consider themselves within the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija administered by the UN. The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN-administered, the UN does not even recognize the existence of the Republic of Kosovo. These are the two "entities" or "factions", if you like, that exist within Kosovo, which is by Wikipedia consensus a "disputed region". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, yes, I know. The matter is immensely complicated, even on the general level. As you say, the UNMIK created the Kosovar assembly. The UN controlled the region. That assembly, however, declared the new "Republic of Kosovo". This move excludes UN control by definition, and passes the power to the newly-created government. This move was in no way encouraged or endorsed by the United Nations. The UN did not recognize the declaration and the "Republic of Kosovo", thus maintaining that the region was still an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. The government of the Republic of Kosovo naturally rejects UN administration as it is an independent government not recognized by the UN. Hence, the Republic of Kosovo is not under UN administration. The only part of Kosovo still not rejecting UN administration are the Serbian enclaves.

"All of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the Serbian enclaves."
Quite true, but its not that simple. All of Kosovo is "nominally" under UN administration, but you've not followed that correct assertion to its end. "Nominally" (but most of it not de facto), Kosovo is UN administered, it is "nominally" not an independent country. "Nominally", Kosovo is a UN administered autonomous province of Serbia. The situation on the ground, the de facto situation, is quite different (as you may conclude from the above paragraph). De facto, only the Serbian enclaves accept UN administration (as a part of Serbia). The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN administered, and its independence from Serbia is not recognized by the United Nations.
These are the basics of the situation. I hope they'll provide an adequate insight, despite my not being a professional at politics and diplomacy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the proper term. It just doesn't seem right to call it "protection" in this case. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GustavusPrimus

I noted that in a deletion review log dating from May 15, 2008 [15] you engaged heavily with the user GustavusPrimus and specuated that he might be a sock puppet of two other accounts involved with the debate.

I thought you might be interested in knowing that GustavusPrimus has been found to have been utilizing two sock puppet accounts [16], both of which were involved in that same debate, but not the ones you were initially considering. I've included a little bit more information on my talk page User_talk:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy#GustavusPrimus. I will certainly be looking out for the individuals you mentioned concern with during the discussions.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied to your message at User talk:Coppertwig#providing summaries of Abd's comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points

I just wanted to say I read your response to my Abd/Jzg evidence, and you make good points. My responses won't surprise you-- basically the whole crux of my raising civility is that I think it gets at the heart of the "real" problem in these RFCs and Arbcom cases with JzG. By and large, he tends to make EXCELLENT decisions as an admin. Normally he does take the actions that a neutral, civil admin would take. It's just that sometimes he's goes about things in ways that inflame, rather than defuse, the conflict. A judge who takes a case even though he's married to the defendant is in the wrong-- even if he does render the same verdict that a truly neutral judge would have. A hostage negotiator who regularly inflames the hostage crises is still doing a lousy-- even if the criminals really are guilty of everything they're charged with.

But, both good points to make. I've corrected my evidence to make it more clear that I agree with your points and am not trying to say that the actions were, in and of themselves, wrong. Had a truly and completely uninvolved admin taken the exact same steps, neither the rfc nor the arbcom case would exist. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally right there. JzG still needs to learn more tact when putting on his admin hat. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of TL;DR

I have nominated TL;DR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiporjecrts by banned user

I guess ask Roger Davies (talk · contribs) about the Pak military one, as he owns the whole joint. I've notified him. The others could be speediable as a creation of a banned user YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your whitelisting

I got one too! (Convenience link for seminal 1990 Pons and Fleischmann paper). I've added it to the article, we'll see what happens. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I just added mine to Michael McKubre. I still need to go use it as a reference. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this "whitelisting" you're talking about? Just curious. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about this whitelisting. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Longo Sculpture

		The Iowa Barnstar
		For your commendable and succinct defense of the Robert Longo sculpture in Iowa City, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with all the OCD folks trying to demolish legit articles and images through bureaucratic challenges is what drove me into early retirement, I appreciate your help. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Enric, you have been participating in an effort to exclude reliably-sourced material from the Cold fusion article, based on arguments that the source is fringe, specifically Storms, The science of low-energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007. World Scientific is a major publisher, and is certainly independent, not a fringe publishing house. The book is a secondary source, a major review of the field, the most complete. You also are objecting to the not-yet-asserted use of a review paper by He Jing-Tiang published in Frontiers of physics in China (Springer-Verlag)in 2007. This is a secondary source in a peer-reviewed journal. You may certainly argue that facts or assertions taken from these sources should be treated with caution, but you may not exclude them out-of-hand; to do so on the argument that these reviews are "fringe" is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. While this is a formal warning against excluding material merely because it is allegedly fringe, I would much prefer to have your cooperation. Please help to use this material, and, of course, to make sure that it is balanced with other sources, keeping in mind the requirements of WP:RS with regard to science articles. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, would you care to point out what part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science am I violating? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Good question. Advocacy. See also Finding re ScienceApologist. Note that ArbComm has recommended mediation if further disputes arise. I've made another edit today to Cold fusion that restores the material removed last by Hipocrite, which material was quite condensed from the originally removed material over which Hipocrite initiated his poll. I added additional reliable sources to support Storms. Please don't remove this material; instead, if it makes the article out of balance, please balance it properly. It is not imbalance, however, to report notable theories, "proposed explanations," of cold fusion; and it's entirely imbalanced, per the ArbComm decision, to categorically remove such material. Without this, we had no actual proposed explanations, only dismissive and derisive quotations from weak secondary (passing mention) and teriary (Derry) sources. That was blatantly one-sided. Thanks for asking. --Abd (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You see, in the "advocacy" thing, I don't think that Storms or Jing-tang are making "conjectures that hold significant prominence", that's why I don't think that I'm violating it. I also think, and other editors think too, that these sources are not reliable, that they are fringe unreliable sources that uncritically support all non-significant non-prominent views in the field indepently of how wacky or unlikely they are. The most egregious examples of non-prominent views proposed by Storms are the biological transmutation thing or the hydrino theory thing. They are all views that have discarded by mainstream as not having solid experimental evidence that has been replicated independently, and not a good solid theorical base. As for SA, he was acting against consensus, which is what you are doing here when promoting certain sources as reliable or relevant long after there is consensus that they are not.

Sorry, but I'm tired of having to explain the same points again and again, and I'm tired of walls of text from a person who keeps refusing to accept any consensus that goes against his personal opinion. I don't know what you do at other talk pages, but at Talk:Cold fusion you have drifted over time into promoting the most fringe views on the topic, to the point that my patience is (almost) exhausted. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum, now I don't know if I should got to mediation for a specific topic or directly to WP:RFC/U :P Abd, if I make a mediation on Storms & proposed explanations, will you agree to bind voluntarily to the result? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been following Abd's edits on the talk page of cold fusion. His edits are tendentious and his sourcing quite suspect. Long comments like the ones above are exactly the same kind of edits that were heavily criticized during the recently completed Abd & JzG ArbCom case. My advice is to report him on WP:ANI and appeal for a community topic ban. His methods - acting as a mouthpiece for the highly speculative and unestablished claims of a banned editor User:JedRothwell and wearing down good faith editors with prolonged and endless screeds of repetitive prose - are unacceptable and disruptive. In particular his essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing shows intent to undermine WP policies on fringe science, slowly and persistently. Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In a word, Mathsci, horseshit. It will bounce back in your face. I'm not a mouthpiece for Rothwell, period. You've got a dispute with me, follow DR. ANI isn't part of that process. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In what sense am I in dispute with you? This seems like a very evasive and combative way in which to respond to criticism. As far as I am aware, we do not edit any common articles. Are you referring to evidence presented in the recent ArbCom case? Your recent editing record is extremely unbalanced at the moment with multiple problems. If you continue hounding other editors and editing tendentiously, you are probably heading for a topic ban. Possibly some sense of proportion might be restored while cold fusion is locked. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the walls of text, but this is a complex subject and deserves detailed examination. If this is too long, just pay attention to the article edits and respond with care.

Now, to your points:

conjectures that hold significant prominence. There are various standards for this; publication in reliable source certainly meets the standard. Sources do not fail WP:RS because they can be claimed to be fringe. Wikipedia standards for notability suggest that independent publication satisfies RS for the purpose of determining notability. Where there is conflict of sources, then relative reliability comes into play, but we don't exclude verifiable and notable material. However, in fact, we don't have conflict of sources, when it's examined closely. Hydrino theory is prominent. Have you looked at the references I just put in? However, I don't want to argue details yet. The principle is that WP:RS must be taken as an objective standard; the way you are interpreting it, it becomes subjective, and it is, then, circular. If it is fringe, no matter how reliable the source might seem otherwise, it's unreliable because it is fringe, and the subject is non-notable fringe because there is no reliable source.

It's quite clear that the "mainstream" discarded cold fusion in 1989. Look at the publication in that year from the Rothwell paper, negative papers were 2:1 against positive. However, 1990, the papers were equal positive and negative, and every year after that, though overall publication volume declined, it didn't collapse, and positive papers far outweighed negative ones. And this does not include conference papers. However, as far as mainstream opinion, what happened in the last twenty years? Nothing? By 2004, you must be aware, the DoE panel was showing very significant interest in cold fusion, and recommended further research. (When we take the "same as 1989 overall conclusion" as continued rejection, we forget that the 1989 panel also recommended further research and did not consider the matter closed. We've mistaken Huizenga for the panel.) Remember, half the 2004 panel thought the evidence for excess heat "convincing." One-third of the panel was "somewhat convinced" that the origin of the heat was nuclear. Enric, this is utterly incompatible with a judgment that cold fusion was, as of 2004, "discarded by mainstream." I'm not promoting a fringe view, I'm relying on reliable sources and reporting what is in them. There is mention of biological transmutation in reliable sources, by RS standards. That isn't at all the same as claiming that it's real. It's unconfirmed, as to specific experiments and broad verification, and there are only two mentions of it now or previously in the article. One is a See also, which seems to have been accepted, and the other was a mention (reverted) of biological transmutation as a desirable phenomenon (not asserted as real) to be explained by a theory. In other words, if there is a theory that explains cold fusion, we already know it's quite likely outside standard physics. (Though it is possible that someone will figure out a standard model theory, and there are theories which do make the claim that they are standard physics, but this is conference papers.) If something is happening that is outside standard physics, on what basis can you claim that biological transformation is beyond the pale? We really don't know. Absolutely, it seems unlikely, until you start thinking that cold fusion might actually be happening. But that's not enough for us. We don't write the encyclopedia based on "seems."

The core of this is how reliability of sources is established. My opinion is that it is relatively objective, and "fringe" isn't relevant, except if a publisher can be credibly shown to be devoted to fringe topics. Even then, publication could make a source sufficiently notable to use for attributed opinion. Here, though, that's not being asserted. World Scientific is not a fringe publisher, period. Neither is the Oxford University Press /American Chemical Society, by the way, that book is on the way, I'm told. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, we have discussed this many times. What I am asking now is, if I open a mediation case so that both cases can present their arguments in an orderly fashion, then, will you abide by the result of the mediation? If I open the case, and both sides present the argument, and people comment on it, and a guy from the mediation cabal closes the case with a compromise solution. Then, are you willing to bind yourself to the result of the mediation? Even if it isn't exactly what you wanted? Even if you disagree with the result? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: question

Hello Enric Naval. You will recall that over a month ago you started an RfC section here regarding the image to be used in the article's infobox. After the discussion was automatically closed, user:Kurt Leyman restored his own preferred image on the base of a vote count. None of the arguments voiced by me and user:Johnbod (whom I contacted on his talk page on account of his interest in Byzantine art) were addressed by the other party. Has this RfC been handled according to normal procedure? To me it seems strange that the outcome should be determined by merely counting votes. At any rate, consensus has not been reached. I would appreciate to have your opinion on this. Greetings, Iblardi (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, these matters are usually quite complicated. One problem is both sides were offering opinions on what looked better, with no sources showing which are really the original colors of the items depicted (is his dress really purple? is that round thing really bright orange or is it palid red?).

Looking at the conversation, I suggest that the best course of action would be uploading [17] into wikipedia, label it as {{PD-art}}, and placing it into the article. That's because that image appears to address all coloring and light concerns raised by both sides. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of accuracy in representation rather than of aesthetics. The fact that the dress is supposed to be purple, not blue, can be easily verified.[18] It is the lack of counterarguments from the other side which bothers me. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Iblardi (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

19 May Image deletions -- Impressed

Dear Enric, I just wanted to write to say that I stumbled on the Files for Deletion section for 19 May and, while I have a lower (but I think still justifiable) threshold for Fair Use of images than you, I admire the way you consider each image according to your criteria and respect the arguments of others. I hope that I can become as reasoned in my dealings on the admin side of WP as I see you being. All the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Willie Gillis

I have replied to your commentary. I think you should state your interest in keeping each image at its individual discussion so that there is no confusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I put my !votes under each image. Btw, I just noticed that, from the four covers that I ask to keep, only one is nominated. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Matthewedwards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi, Enric. I added a section to Abd's userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on the talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you may have the source, please comment on source misrepresentation claim by Mathsci.

[19].

This has gotten way out of hand. It's supposed to be simple to get something whitelisted if it's needed, and the copyright arguments could have been raised -- and were raised -- with respect to every link that you got whitelisted. As we have seen before, it isn't simple. Whitelisting doesn't mean automatic usage, and a whole site can be available for linking even if it contains some copyvio, policy is clear on that. However, Mathsci's accusation is completely beyond the pale. You may have the source, I believe, from your Talk at Mathsci. Will you look at what I posted and his accusation, check the review to see that it says what I claimed -- which was, unless I made some mistake, exact quotation -- and comment? --Abd (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This misrepresentation is argueable, so I can't really say "X is right and Y is wrong". I comment in the whitelist page. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask you to look again. I quoted from Sheldon, Mathsci responded, immediately below my comment, that I was misrepresenting the source. In context, that would not refer to something that I allegedly did elsewhere, but to the immediate preceding comment. If it referred to Talk:Cold fusion, why was this brought to a discussion of whitelisting some links, where Sheldon was mentioned purely to show notability of the web site. Yes, notability within the field." What other kind of notability would be important? How was my comment at the whitelist page "arguable" as misrepresentation? What in that comment could reasonably have been misrepresentation? You are aware, I presume, that this is almost entirely direct quote, and if it was cherry-picked, surely you could find some contrary text. --Abd (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply in whitelist page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned user

Can someone run a CU on 67.81.194.67? Appears to be NootherID. —Whig (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see below, I opened a SPI case. I'm tot 100% sure if it's the same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. That's just a clueless user from New York who added a bit of information to the article, having no idea how contentious and well-guarded it is, and left a note on the talk page to make sure someone else verifies it's correct. It's obvious that the user isn't even familiar with talk page sections. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans is right, I look again and now it looks like some guy innocently posted in the wrong place at the worst time (and, like many new users, he didn't think of giving the details for the exact source). My mistake for continuing to build the SPI case even after discovering that the IP was from a wholly different place :-( --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at anon 59.96.59.100. —Whig (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This one does fit with Dr.Jhingadeey. I see that Bull already tagged him --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DrJ a troll?

I feel that DrJ is a troll intended to cause disruption and bring disrepute on homeopathy, quite frankly, and would not be surprised if he continues to turn up and act like he's never learned the rules because he's pretending to be new. —Whig (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I fear you are right. His past history shows that this is his MO. Fortunately I doubt that any editors at the homeopathy article will let this user's behavior affect their opinions about homeopathy one way or the other. Don't worry about that. This guy is just a sad case. Such people also plague other articles on other subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not alter the opinions of the skeptics and would not be intended to if his purpose is as I described. —Whig (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He's no troll, if you mean someone "pretending" to be a believer in homeopathy. No, he is a real homeopath and he doesn't intend disruption, but intends to make Wikipedia stop including content that demeans homeopathy. That ends up being disruptive, because it violates our policies in several ways. He has a website and presence on the internet as a homeopath, and he linkspammed it many times, which is what got him one of his first blocks. IOW, he's not faking it. He doesn't understand Wikipedia and doesn't seem capable of doing so, as it's been explained to him many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You posted the same thing on my talk and I replied there. I don't want to cut and paste myself here. —Whig (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. This was also for the sake of Enric. I have replied on your talk, and this matter seems pretty much settled. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion topic ban

Say, it looks like there are a few kinks in the markup of your AN/I request for review of the topic bans (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion). I suspect that there might be a closing bracket or two missing somewhere, but I don't want to tamper. Could you have a quick look? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Forgot to close one diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uruk2008

I just created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008; it needs a second endorsement, so please endorse if you agree. Thanks, -- BenRG (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorsed. Please leave me a message here when the RfC goes live. Please feel free to use any of my comments in your evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's live now, but I'm kind of unclear on how the system works. -- BenRG (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Approved_pages_.28users.29, so it must have been approved by someone from the mediation cabal. There are people who regularly look at the list and comment on the open request, so I wold just let it run its natural course. When the RFC is closed you can then ask in ANI that Uruk2008 is banned and checkusered. Unless, of course, he finally says something, acknowledges the problem, and starts trying to use sources of better quality. You already did your part by starting a community discussion, you should only participate to endorse views, to clarify points in the talk page of the RfC, and to reply to questions that people makes you about the question before participating in the RfC. It's now up to Uruk2008 to change his behaviour, you can't force him to reply to the RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I moved it there. Should I undo that edit? -- BenRG (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I looked again at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Instructions and it doesn't make any limitation on who can move it. The RfC already has two users certifying the dispute, so it complies the criteria. If there is some problem with the certification then someone will point it out and act as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that he has blanked the message you left warning him about the RfC. According to WP:BLANKING, this amounts to an acknowledgement that he read the warning. If the RfC closes with users agreeing in that he is being uncivil, and him not changing his behaviour at all, you can simply do as I suggested above: ask in ANI that he is blocked/banned and that the other accouts are checkusered. (ask me if you need help in making the checkuser petition) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the f&p refs

Change all of the broken F1990 refs to:

<ref name="FleischmannPons_1990" />

Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MIT

It's not "The MIT" - it's either "MIT" or "The Mass. Institute of Technology." I don't know why, but I know I'm right. Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you say so... :-) I wikilinked the name too, since I can't find any mention of MIT anywhere else in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's right, that's usage. MIT of course, is a drastically inferior school to the one I attended, which is likewise not known as "The Caltech," even though, if the full name is used, it's the California Institute of Technology. Technically, the name is Massachusetts Institute of Technology but if the name is spelled out, the definite article "the" is normally used. Not capitalized, unless it's the first word in the sentence. You can look at usage in the articles.

On the other hand, maybe since I now live in Massachusetts, I should switch my loyalties to MIT. Tough issue. :-) --Abd (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Croats

Hello,can you please give me a response to discussion on artcicle'Croats'.Thank you.I try to edit one thing but it always returns back,although I've explained it in 'discussion'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.252.236 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about this topic to help you, I only help with some vandal that alters the population figues.

However, you should stop reverting it back. Some people gave you explanations in their edit summaries:

• "RV. Croats are a South Slavic group, ethnically, linguistically and culturally."[20]

  "RV. South Slavic is correct. They are a South Slavic ethnic group, in every sense. Please research teh term "ethnic group" then maybe you'll understand." [21]

  "RV. Your edit summary is insufficient and incorrect. An ethnic group is a racial, religious, cultural, or linguitstic people, so South Slav is correct in at least 3/4 of the criteria" [22]

You should explain in the talk page why you think that "South slavic" is mistaken, and let other editors opinate. Reverting all the time will only lead to blocks or to the article being protected. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gracias por interesarte

Solo eso... gracias! ;) --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning about sock puppetry accusation

You struck a comment by GetLinkPrimitiveParams claiming that this user is a sock of a banned editor. There seems to be an SSP report filed, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LossIsNotMore, however, there are reasons to doubt this. I'm quite familiar with the puppet master, and GLPP doesn't seem to match the profile, but it's possible I'm wrong. Nrcprm2026 would be quite likely to engage in a vendetta against me, I got him blocked more than once. I think that you should revert yourself on this, accusing an editor of being a sock, outside an SSP report, is a serious offense; indeed, I was blocked for even hinting at it last year as a speculation, you baldly asserted it. The editor GLPP hasn't even been warned of the sock puppetry charges on his Talk, the accuser is a new account registered today. --Abd (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already reverted myself when I saw your message. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions

Restriction from User talk:Abd

I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from editing my Talk page for the time being, with these exceptions:

1. You may post brief notes requesting I discuss any matter with you on your Talk, or otherwise briefly dealing directly with some matter that should not generate controversy.
2. You may request that any material you find unfairly critical of you be removed or redacted; please do not debate it, but simply point to an edit with a diff and make the request.
3. You may make formal warnings as you find necessary, provided that evidence is linked, without argument beyond assertion of policy or guideline violation.

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I could have just written, as have others to me, "Don't edit my Talk page or else." But, in fact, communication with you is occasionally useful; I just needed to stop what was spinning out into what could amount to trolling for incivility, whether by you or by others. Thanks for understanding. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Restriction from subpages of User:Mathsci

1. I hereby inform me that you are forthwith page-banned from all my user subpages. You may appeal to ArbCom about specific cases but only on an even numbered day.
2. You may contribute to their talk pages provided you write in esperanto.
3. I am contemplating starting WikiProject XIX to examine the importance of the number 19 on wikipedia. This is a formal warning that you may contribute to this project even if you do not wish to do so. You may not discuss this with MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
4. Please never troll on my talk page or you are likely to be indefinitely blocked.
5. Please refrain from using transparently disingenuous OKs.

OK? Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both you and Mathsci are welcome to post to my Talk page provided that:

1. Each post is a haiku.
2. They are kept in the same section.
3. They alternate, and the capitalized first letter of each post, seen together, spells DGAF, as many times as you like. ::Perhaps this will reduce damage elsewhere. Meanwhile, I have an article and Some Other Stuff to write, and, damn!, ordinary life keeps interfering. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary life ??? Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's hard to believe. What could possibly be more important than Wikipedia? --Abd (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ouyay rokebay hetay odecay! KOay Verbal chat 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My code is strictly private and unbreakable. Verbal this is a formal warning that any further attempts at WP:OUTING will have grave consequences. Your username and that of any perceived wikifriend could be appended to User:Peter Damian's outlawed list. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppenheimer on WR

About this, that IP that did this edit is actually someone from the Sandia National Laboratories according to this. I don't know the subject matter, but are we sure that edit by them was technically inaccurate or just left bad language use? rootology (C)(T) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP only means that the edit was made by some Sandia employee, who could have or not have knowledge in nuclear physics. It could be some informatic like me, trashing around in his free time in physics articles hoping that he doesn't break too much stuff while trying to improve the articles :P

The edit removed that "[the proton] does not take part in the reaction". Why did he do that? Who knows, maybe the role of the proton is described incorrectly, and the IP decided to remove the whole thing instead of fixing it. In any case, the reaction is more complicated than that, see description in a book written by the son of the discoverer so my edits are also innacurate and the article needs way more wordsmithing.

So, *I* think that it's someone removing info instead of fixing it, a typical error that I have seen both in IPs and in registered editors. For all we know, it could even be a nuclear physicist from Sandia checking that the article was correct, and accidentally erasing part of the text without even noticing it.

And, coming from Sandia, I doubt that it's some bored vandal erasing stuff at random. Kudos for thinking of checking the origin of the IP :) I'm gonna add that description to the article and work a bit on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave the article a good workout. I think I got the descriptions right, and even lay people should now understand how and why the effect happens. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one whopping big deuteron nucleus there, several times 10^-3 cm. between the proton and neutron? That's about big enough to see with the naked eye, maybe, in good light. What would the whole atom or molecule be, about fist-sized? I haven't done the math. I don't have a reference, or I'd clean it up. That is, I know it's wrong, but not what's right. This is a problem with editing a nuclear physics article when you don't have any nuclear physics, it's word salad. There are cold fusion theories, by the way, which involve neutrons, I think Widom-Larsen goes that route. Okay, I did find a source, [23], I'd guess you used this, since you cite it, and it's 10^-13 cm, but what is ten orders of magnitude among friends? The section was quite garbled; for example, a deuteron is not a molecule, it's a nucleus. I fixed that. And I'm still not thrilled, I was not familiar with this process and could have gotten some of it wrong. It would be best if an expert looked at it. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections, that size error is the sort of error that non-experts don't catch easily. However, I think that my explanation was clearer. I have used parts of your wording to fix it a bit. Both explanations had errors in it in some or other part. Notice that one of the nucleons of the deuteron has to touch the surface of the target nucleus in order for the process to happen, that the Coulomb barrier is not generated by one nucleus but by the interaction between them, that the energy of the proton was totally incorrect, etc. That article still needs a lot of work. In my reply to Moulton in the Wikipdia Review I listed some stuff that the article lacks. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Enric, your edit re-mangled it. You have a series of misconceptions that you are incorporating in the article. There is no "touching," for example, where did you get that from? -- you won't see that from a physicist! Touching is a contact of surfaces, and there are no literal, specified surfaces at the subatomic level, or the atomic level, for that matter; rather, particles come close enough to interact. The brief description you are following as a source uses the expression, for the neutron, that it "reaches the surface" but, in this case, that's simply shorthand for "close enough for the binding force to take over."

As would be common, it seems you have a classical understanding of particles as if they were "things," with defined surfaces. Nothing like that exists on the atomic level or below. A particle is not just in one position, it is characterized by a probability field, i.e., that its effect has such and such a probability of being found here or another probability of being found there. So as a neutron approaches a nucleus, there is no point at which they "touch." Theoretically, there is a probability of fusion between two deuterons at any distance, to return to our favorite example. But that probability is very low under almost all conditions, unless the deuterons approach to within a certain distance; as they approach, perhaps because of kinetic energy applied against the repulsive electrostatic force, the probability of fusion increases. Fusion means that the binding force between the deuterons overcomes the repulsive force; were it not for the binding force, which only exists significantly at very short range, repulsion would overcome any amount of kinetic energy, fusion would be completely impossible, because the repulsive force increases with the inverse square of distance. That force would deaccelerate the deuterons.

Which points out something: when this effect is happening, the deuteron is under deacceleration, not acceleration. It's being deaccelerated by the Coulomb field. But the deuterium nucleus is not uniformly charged, it's lop-sided, with the positive charge on the proton side. This may cause the deuteron to orient so that the neutron is on the side nearest to the nucleus, or it might not have time to do that, I don't know; the effect may simply be that if the incident deuteron's positive side is facing away from the nucleus, when the deacceleration is complete and the deuteron has been slowed to a small relative velocity, or at some point before this, the neutron is close enough to fuse. The proton, at that point, is subject to maximum repulsive force, and if this is great enough to break the binding energy of the deuteron, that's what happens and the proton is ejected, and accelerated by the Coulomb field between it and the nucleus to the energies found in emitted protons. If fusion of the neutron occurs before the deuteron has been deacclerated, if there is enough kinetic energy remaining, so that the proton itself reaches fusion distance, we will get full deuteron fusion. A detailed examination of this would be more complex than I'm competent for without a lot of research, but the idea that the neutron has to "touch" is completely wrong. Basically, with deuterons of a certain energy, the incidence of neutron capture by the nucleus would start to go up. This would get us into cross section (physics) and much more complication.

I did know what I was doing, Enric, and I suggest that you revert to my version, which is at least more respectable, should an expert look at this (there may still be errors!) and then we can discuss each change. That you don't understand the physics can be a help, actually, for the article eventually should well explain it to you. But extensively adding text that you don't really understand, not a good idea. You might think it is clear, but to anyone who knows the subject, it will be awful. We need both. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I already knew everything that you are saying, and if you look the picture in page 507 of this source you will see that either the proton or the neutron actually have to strike the nucleus itself for the Oppenheimer-Phillips to happen. If the deuteron only passes near to the nucleus then the process breaking the deuteron is different and it has a different name (in page 505 of that source, it's called process II ("electric" desintegration of the deuteron), while process III is the actual Oppenheimer-Phillips process, and only at low energies, it also gets a different name ("stripping") at higher energies (I suspect that includes the case of having so much kinetic energy that there is a full deuteron fusion). Also, the sources clearly talks about "reaching the surface of the nucleus" and similar wordings, it seems that the nucleon reaches near enough that you can use that expression. And, yes, if you describe it in quantum mechanics terms then it's not like that, but I was not using those terms. I was talking about the deuteron as of a body "with a finite size" like that source says, and the source also adds a description in quantum mechanics term, which I didn't add. And if you add a description in QM terms, then don't add it in the middle of the other description because it will only confuse readers, add it in a separate paragraph, or add a explanation of how the process looks like in QM terms.

Finally, I suggest that, while you corrected some errors, you also introduced several others, so please don't speak to me as if I didn't know anything about the subject and as if you knew everything about it, and as if only your version was correct and "at least more respectable", ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

P.D.:Also, I suggest giving me until monday to finish polishing the article, and then submit it for review to Edchem (because I find that he did a good work reviewing one of the sections of Cold Fusion article that both of us edited, or to some member of WP:CHEMISTRY. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though why you'd want to give your version priority pending is beyond me; I thought, given the number of really blatant errors you made, that I took out and you reverted back in, you'd have some pause about it. I only discussed the first few! You think I introduced errors but you didn't actually point to one that was actually an error. The expertise, by the way, wouldn't be in chemistry but in physics, specifically nuclear physics or quantum mechanics or, better, quantum electrodynamics, though QM may be adequate (I note that your source claims, however, that the situation is too complex to determine the wave function of the deuteron approaching the nucleus.)

I don't know everything about it, just far more than you. You added in more bloopers. However, I asked you to revert your changes and then work on apparent errors one at a time, but it's up to you whether you do that or not, I certainly wasn't demanding it. By the way, I closely followed the source, and it's just that I probably understand the source much better.

The present state of the article is perhaps even worse than when you first reverted my edit. I won't bother explaining now, I'll revise the article to create a forked version which will be in edit history even if you revert it, and then a diff can show the two versions; quite simply, what you have done is so mangled that it needs to be completely rewritten, and, luckily, it's a short article. So if you really want to take your version to an expert, fine. I certainly would prefer that my own be reviewed.

Here is the bottom line. I have a fair amount of education in the specifics of the article. And, even with that, I feel hesitant to write it, I only took it on because what was there was so bad. You either have less education or, possibly, a lack of facility with the language. It's one thing to assist in the creation or modification of an article, finding sources, etc., one issue at a time; quite another to put together an article on a technical subject without really understanding it. You do have a rough idea of the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, but not of the field in general, so your explanations, which you alter from the sources since you don't want to directly copy, are off. It's true that the source uses "touch," but how I described it is more accurate, "touch" was just being used as shorthand for "approach sufficiently closely to fuse." The diagram you mention represents the target nucleus as a circle, sure, but, remember, that nucleus is made up of neutrons and protons just like the deuteron (but I don't know about relative distances under those conditions. The circle is a schematic simplification, and no "touching" is shown in that diagram.)

I'd give you more specific guidance, but it's just too much at this point, it will be easier when we have an article that is basically right and that then needs only polishing, and the fastest way to do that is to present two drafts to an expert. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that, after seeing you being deauthorized by several Chemistry and Physics PhDs, I no longer have confidence in your expertise in physics.

Also, you are proposing a very confrontational approach, aka your draft vs my draft. If you see mistakes in the article then please comment on them in talk. When I ask someone to review then that person will be able to see them. Also, if you decide to correct something then please don't revert your corrections back if I take them out or replace them for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. When an entire piece is written with an underlying misunderstanding of the topic, it's easier to write it more or less from scratch. I already did that, though I used your version as a framework, and you basically rejected most of it, continuing your misunderstandings. You can call it confrontational, but I'd say your massive revert was confrontational, indeed. Writing two different drafts is quite an efficient way to do it. Then when we have some kind of decision on which is best, or we get help in putting together a third version, we can readily work on details, one at a time. You may not have confidence in my understanding of this topic, but you have based that on judgments by some rather biased individuals. Your choice. I don't have credentials, and even if I did, it wouldn't matter, you wouldn't recognize them anyway. I don't need your permission to do what I plan to do, I'm just letting you know what to expect. And if we attract some better talent to the article, that's great, isn't it? So ... may the best draft win, or something even better. I was just suggesting that it would be better if mine stood until that review, with work on small changes from it, but, obviously, you disagree, insisting on putting nonsense into the article. Why argue further about it? If I had time, I'd fix it right away, but I don't. --Abd (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited Oppenheimer–Phillips process this morning, trying to make it both accurate and clear to a general reader with a modest understanding of basic physics. The explanation is classical, but I tried to be careful not to state things that would contradict quantum mechanics, thus, for example, I wrote of the increased probability of fusion rather than "contact" or "touching." Stripping can be understood with classical mechanics. I did not include the attribution of binding energy to the internal motion of the two nucleons, that's a detail that is not important. Glue would do just as well, and I considered that too much detail; it's merely a means of conceptualizing the binding force (imagine two particles in orbit around each other; the force attracting them is balanced by the centrifugal force of their motion. If one of them gets stuck while the other is repelled with a force greater than the binding force, the continuing particle will carry away the energy of its own internal motion as if it simply was cut loose. That's an oversimplified explanation, which is one reason why I wanted to avoid it. I did discuss the energy of the expelled proton and added the significant fact that the target nucleus may be left in the ground state, i.e, with the energy of fusion balanced by the apparent negative energy of the neutron.

The final fused nucleus is not necessarily radioactive, as in the original C-13 example. However, mention of the product possibly being radioactive should be there, since this is how the effect was discovered. I'd prefer, though, to have details of that experiment, which I don't have. In other words, we should have a specific example of radioactivity, and it should be an important one, and the most important one would be the one which occasioned the original discovery. There may also be other important examples of deuteron-induced transmutation.

I'd suggest that if any of what I put in the article is not clear to you, that it be discussed in Talk for the article.

I'm aware of one problem. I wrote the piece in this way: I first gained an understanding of the sources, which assume knowledge of physics and which therefore briefly mention things without details; those concepts must be explained in order for a lay reader to make sense of them. So I then wrote an explanation, not depending specifically on the sources for wording, but only for the concepts. It is possible that, through this, I introduced some WP:OR; more likely, I simply wrote what is well-known and which could be sourced if necessary. I don't think, for example, that we need to source the basic physical concept of the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy as with an elastic collision, or a weight dropped on a spring, and then the recovery of that energy, its conversion back to kinetic energy, as the spring accelerates the weight back to its original energy.

I was very aware, writing this, that it's possible I could write things that a true expert would want to correct to make it most accurate, and it's also possible that I missed something important. But I removed much which was redundant, wrong, or oblique and inadequately explained. I assume we will solicit expert opinion before we are done. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked EdChem to review it here.

Also, Abd, next time you talk to me could you refrain from saying things like "continuing your misunderstandings" and "you disagree, insisting on putting nonsense into the article". As I said above, I saw several people with Physics PhDs disagreeing with your understanding of the topic. I'll have to search more sources to clarify stuff in the article.... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I request that you be specific about these "physics PhDs" so I can resolve misunderstandings. Otherwise I expect a retraction. As to the article, you have been, clearly, in over your head. Your efforts initially are very much appreciated, and you final input will also be valuable, but ScienceApologist, who understands the overall topic as well or better than myself, and with much more recent exposure, is now involved and has been actively editing the article. We are discussing it in detail, and I'm sure that we will end up with a better article. Please watch and if explanations aren't clear to you, let us know in article Talk. Or explain how you understand what we have written in the article, that will help us to understand if it has been clear. People with technical knowledge may think an article is perfect, yet the lay reader walks away mystified. Ultimately, the article isn't for people who already know, it is for those who wish to become informed. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[24] Good, you got it. --Abd (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers for harvnb refs

Hi Enric, you might want to check out {{rp}} and its doc page. LeadSongDog come howl 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict on Wikipilipinas about DZAM & DZAR

Is there a Radio Station like DZAM Commando Radio 1026? Is there a frequency like 1000 KHz in the Philippines? User:Lianlaspinas is the one responsible for doing DZAM Commando Radio 1026 & DZAR. Try fixing this problem in Wikipilipinas. Superastig (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

replied in Talk:DZAR#name_change_from_DZAM_to_DZAR. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my additional comments on DZAR's talk page and Superastig's talk page. Thanks! -danngarcia (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For not taking the bait and keeping a cool head, despite provocation, in multiple areas that (apparently) provoke strong feelings. Verbal chat 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) It takes a bit of effort to keep my cool, more than once I have started writing a reply after just reading some thread, and I have had to rewrite it a few times until it's civilized enough to post it. Many times I write a reply and then I spend some time doing something else, and I re-read it to make sure that I'm not just saying something wrong in the heat of the moment.

Certainly, I spend too much time arguing in controversial articles. Let's see if I can get back in track and start making again actual work in article text :D --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

For your enlightenment:

• Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

• "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans

I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article). If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026

Hello Enric. I see you're one of the people who commented on this sock case. At present the checkusering is half done, waiting for more conventional evidence, so far as I can tell. Though I suspect that other accounts in the list are very likely to be socks, I don't have any time to check contributions, and someone familiar with Cold fusion is in the best position to gather evidence from contributions. So, in the great tradition of finding someone else to take care of it, I've hit upon the idea of having you do the work. Would you consider examining the remaining (unblocked) accounts in more detail, to see if you can build a conventional sock case? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I added more details. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on your reversion of the sock edit to Cold fusion. Most of those changes were spelling corrections of words that had, indeed, been incorrectly spelled. I see that Cardamon pickup up on that and fixed them. Splargo had made extensive changes to Instant runoff voting which is exactly where I first tangled with Nrcprm2026, and I left them because they were helpful or at least harmless. There is no requirement to revert changes or comments from sock puppets, it is simply permitted, and, usually, if there have been responses, comments won't be reverted. --Abd (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have left the typo corrections in place, normally I take care not to destroy intermediate reversions but this time I just didn't notice them and I inadvertently wholesome-reverted all the edits that other people had done after the sock edits, my bad. Cardamon did a good catch noticing that and correcting it.

It's true that banned editors can make some useful edits, but they also can make subtle POV pushing that can only be detected by people who is very familiar with the subject. It all depends on why they were banned. If it was for POV pushing in one area then all his edits on that area are suspect, but in other areas he could be making flawless edits, or at most edits that make no harm.

P.D.: No comment on removing comments from sock of banned users. We already had a conversation about someone removing a comment from from a banned editor, then you reverting it back and replying to it, then someone removing it again, and then you claiming that the comments of the banned editor couldn't be revered out again because there existed now replies to it, when there were actually no replies in the first removal that was done. (I made a half-spirited attempt to find the exact discussion but I gave up on having to wade through thousands of kilobytes over the archives of multiple talk pages). Normally I only strike out the comments by sock, specially when they are in the middle of discussions, or if they were done may days ago. I usually only remove in special cases, right now I can think of when a) they are very recent comments b) they are spreading the same misinformation for the Nth time after multiple opportunities and requests to provide good sources c) they are being obnoxious in purpose d) they are trying to influence the discussion after being banned for influencing them. As a rule of thumb, it depends on whether their comments are actually improving the articles and/or helping the discussion on what changes to make. Splargo was trying to push OR in primary sources, that's not very helpful, but the discussion is probably useful of sorts. Also, it's nice when you go back to a discussion and read only the non-striken comments, the discussions suddenly become better and the real issues surface very clearly, and you can see better if the sock's ideas had actual support or if it was just the same guy pushing the same idea over other people's objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty long for "no comment...." Yes, this has been discussed, but never resolved. The general consensus is that any editor may revert back in comments or article edits from banned editors if the editor is willing to take responsibility for them as being useful. You've disagreed with that, to be sure, and I've never pushed it to a resolution. As you might realize, the patents, for example, had been cited in the article and were removed by the banned editor (from cold fusion) Hipocrite, restored by one or two editors -- not me -- then removed when WMC reverted to the May 14 version. Default: they had a (short-lived) consensus, and the issue is now in mediation, so.... Using a primary source to add verification to a secondary source or to show contradiction, without OR or synth, is perfectly legitimate. What we had was a statement, old, from the USPO that patents on "cold fusion" were not issued, and two patents, more recent, that explicitly claim energy generation from what everyone would agree was a cold fusion apparatus. (There is also secondary source on this, but that would involve considering newenergytimes.com to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose. Might be.) Yes, Splargo was a bit hysterical about it. I'm very familiar with Nrcprm2026, and this time he was pretty moderate where I've seen him be quite outrageous, I'd say his behavior at cold fusion was the worst this time (he was actually defending what seems to have been consensus at Uranium, which is why I reverted his last edit back in), but it wasn't any worse than some non-banned editors.... He tried to get me blocked back in 2007, if you look at my block log, you will see the (very short) block while the admin was figuring out what had happened. He actually created a sock to file the 3RR report, as his opponent did here. I was pretty raw, then, but I did effectively handle the situation. And didn't take undue advantage of the fact that the entire opposition, to my position, at that article, was wiped out in one fell swoop (two editors: an Nrcprm2026 sock and an IP, identity known to me to be a maximally COI editor, later registered and who mostly behaves himself. Sort of.). I actually do believe in NPOV, Enric. And I care more about consensus, real consensus, than any possible POV I might have developed.

You have noticed, I assume, that ScienceApologist has attended to Oppenheimer-Phillips process. I know what he's doing and why he is there, but the result has been a much better article, so far, and it may get even better. I also see why he's been so disruptive in the past, but I can handle it and turn all this into better text, and I look forward to discussions with him at Talk:Cold fusion. Be prepared. --Abd (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note of thanks for all of your hard work to paint me as a sock. Your efforts there are duly noted. In the future I would appreciate it if you could take some of your own advice (see the top of this page) and WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, come on, you know that you sound and behave like the sock of a banned user would sound and behave. (heck, you almost became a banned user yourself months ago, no wonder that you sound like one, lol)

I feel sorry for poor Nopetro, whoever he is, who got caught in the case. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to let this comment slide, but since I seem to be the topic of discussion below I might as well respond in this thread. WTF does "I behave like the sock of a banned user" mean, actually? You made your (now recognized as baseless) accusation that I am a sock and were summarily shot down. Get a clue, Enric, there are people with legitimate disagreements to your POV. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And you don't "feel sorry" for GoRight? Your POV is showing, Enric. You should actually apologize for your bad judgment. But that's up to you, suit yourself. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GoRight has been a real pain in the last days making conspiracy theory accusations and trying to undermine any ban for technical reasons even if it improves wikipeda. So, no, not sorry for him, and nothing to do with POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a hard time following the events of the past few weeks. "making conspiracy theory accusations" - Did I openly wonder about a conspiracy? Yes. Did I make the accusation you are now claiming I made? Absolutely not. Exactly the reverse. I specifically stated that I alleged no such conspiracy. "trying to undermine any ban" - Where have I tried to undermine a ban. I have not so stop making baseless accusations already. I have questioned the validity of a purported ban which is not at all the same thing as undermining (subverting) a ban. I have always stated that I supported an enforced cooling off period, have I not? --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd claim that your analysis, here, is warped by your POV. What appear to you to be "conspiracy theory allegations" aren't. What "improves Wikipedia" is a content judgment and can be highly affected by POV. It all helps, in the end, Enric, so, please, suit yourself, you don't have to satisfy me, personally. I'll say, though, that when I made a sock puppet allegation that turned out to be unsupported, even though I had much stronger evidence than you alleged, actual IP coincidence, I ended up apologizing. You ought to try it, it doesn't actually hurt, though many of us seem to fear it. --Abd (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that stuff of Hipocrite "throwing himself on his own sword" in order to get you banned and then claiming that it was all part a premeditated plan when Hipocrite got himself un-banned by being reasonable, it's all 100% bullshit. I made a mistake? Yes. Did GoRight deserve it? No. Does GoRight behave like the sock of a banned user? Yes. And seeing his behaviour now, I can understand why Raul tried to get himself banned for "baiting and harassment". GoRight ought to get himself a clue and stop making allegations of dark conspiracies and then refusing that he ever allegued anything so he doesn't get blocked for it. He shouldn't be doing stupid allegations in the first place. Also, insisting in that a ban is not "technically" correct even while recognizing that it would be upheld if the banned editor tried to challenge it = 100% bullshit again. I don't come to wikipedia to be fed bullshit by people. I come here to edit articles, and then I discuss in a reasonable manner with other editors about stuff in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"throwing himself on his own sword" - Well, in all honesty, this is precisely what appears to have happened ... but this is merely my own interpretation of the events that transpired. To me it it appears to be not only a plausible explanation for how things played out but probably the most plausible amongst the alternatives. Again, merely my own opinion, nothing more.

"insisting in that a ban is not "technically" correct even while recognizing that it would be upheld if the banned editor tried to challenge it = 100% bullshit again" - WTF? I challenge the view that any individual administrator can unilaterally impose a ban at their sole discretion. Nothing more. And in both the case of Rothwell and more recently Abd all I did was to keep the facts of the situations out in the open and strictly correct.

Fact: Rothwell is currently prevented from editing due to a WP:BLOCK placed on his account by MastCell.

Fact: No community ban of Rothwell was ever declared by an uninvolved administrator nor was one ever recorded at WP:RESTRICT as is the custom in such matters.

Fact: Abd has disputed that WMC is uninvolved and therefore is NOT in a proper position to be able to declare a ban against him.

Fact: After the community indicated support for a ban and it was duly reviewed and closed by a neutral administrator Abd has accepted and honored the ban which was so placed.

Fact: Wikipedia user WMC blocked Abd for making edits that resulted in ZERO change to Cold Fusion.

Fact: Wikipedia user WMC took no action against Hipocrite for making edits to Cold Fusion which DID alter the article in spite of the fact that just a day prior Hipocrite had declared he had no desire to continue editing Cold Fusion in an effort to have his ban lifted.

Now, again, I am making no specific allegations here either way. I am merely recounting the facts as they are plainly visible. Others are free to come to their own conclusions about what they mean, if anything. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"the facts as they are plainly visible"? Bullshit. Jed has not used his account for a long time, he edits from IPs and he was happy to learn that this made it difficult to enforce any ban. Your list of facts misses important "facts" like Abd making those edits only after saying that he was going to test his ban prior to making that edit, the Arbcom members seeing no reason to overturn Jed's ban and seeing no problem with no recording at WP:RESTRICT, SA banning Jed only after he saw this thread on ANI and after several editors, including myself, asked in Talk:Cold fusion that he was banned from the page, including this request that I made to WP:AE that was closed by Jenochman because Jed had temporally stopped editing. Hipocrite's edits "which DID alter the article" were consolidation of references which didn't alter the content of the article in a significant way [25], and they were done after his ban was explicitely lifted [26]. About "[Hipocrite declaring] he had no desire to continue editing Cold Fusion in an effort to have his ban lifted" I'll point out to [petition to change the full ban to less restrictive conditions] for people to see themselves the full context where he said that. Abd has been pointed to where he can dispute WMC's involvement, and his ban was WP:SNOW-endorsed in ANI.

Soooo, I find that your list of facts is full of misrepresentations, omissions and errors, so, sorry, but it still looks something that I can safely describe as "bullshit". Get your facts right and then I'll start taking them seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"I find that your list of facts is full of misrepresentations, omissions and errors" - Really? Misrepresentations? Errors? Please illustrate these misrepresentations and errors in my list of facts. Which of them are not bald facts (and therefore incapable of being misrepresented)? Which of them are in error? Please explain.

Here, let me show you what I mean.

You claim "the Arbcom members seeing no reason to overturn Jed's ban and seeing no problem with no recording at WP:RESTRICT". I claim that is both an error AND a misrepresentation of what occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that when asked to do so Arbcom EXPLICITLY refused to ENDORSE a ban on Rothwell. They refused to ENDORSE a ban. In other words there is no ban. They never even mentioned anything with respect to WP:RESTRICT that I can recall. Bottom line: they were NOT asked to OVERTURN his ban as you imply, they were asked to CONFIRM it and they refused. That is the fact of what happened.

Here is the key portion of JzG's opening statement:

"I think it's probably worth requesting clarification that, in cases where someone exhibits similar behaviour and supports the same agenda as a topic-banned user, and that person is known to be a close collaorator of the restricted user in an area where the restriction applies, and the individual is a single-purpose account, then the same restriction may be applied."

He is explicitly asking Arbcom to sanction his actions with respect to Rothwell by confirming that those actions were an appropriate application of the PCarbon ban. They refused to take up his case so, in effect, they refused to confirm his contention.

Knowing full well how this might be argued in the future I explicitly asked Arbcom to correct me if my summary of my understanding of their meaning was incorrect:

• "I just want to be sure that I understand the facts and intentions expressed in the arbitrator votes/discussion below and that I come away from this proceeding with the right message in mind. It would appear to be in the best interests of the project over-all for everyone to do so. I think that I am hearing the following:

1. They are collectively and EXPLICITLY deciding to NOT endorse a topic ban against Rothwell, although some have expressed a willingness to do so if that became necessary.
2. They are collectively agreeing that the existing policies already in place are sufficient to deal with Rothwell and, therefore, no such endorsement of a topic ban against him is required at this time.
3. They are collectively asserting that the entire issue can and should be dealt with by the community before bringing it to this forum.

I don't presume to speak for the arbitrators so if any of this is incorrect, please by all means correct me on these points. --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)"

I then received an explicit confirmation that this was correct from at least one of the arbitors, Carcharoth.

How you are spinning things inside your head to turn this Arbcom discussion into a complete acceptance of JzG's actions and claims is beyond me. Let's just say that, given all of the above, I have a different recollection of what actually occurred than you seem to.

"SA banning Jed only after he saw this thread on ANI and after several editors, including myself, asked in Talk:Cold fusion that he was banned from the page, including this request that I made to WP:AE that was closed by Jenochman because Jed had temporally stopped editing." - While this is technically a true statement it is also an example of a misrepresentation of the facts. It seeks to imply that the discussion being referenced actually justified the declaration of a ban. The bald facts suggest exactly the reverse:

Fact: The first discussion contained of a significant number of involved editors.

Fact: The first link doesn't contain any discussion of banning Rothwell.

Fact: The first discussion was not closed with a ban on Rothwell.

Fact: The second link doesn't contain any discussion of banning Rothwell.

Fact: The second discussion was not closed with a ban on Rothwell.

Given this, I fail to understand how you seem to think that this demonstrates that I was in error or that I misrepresented anything or that JzG was justified in making any such declaration of a ban on Rothwell.

On a side note, if I personally were in your shoes, I would try to avoid disseminating that second link at all. The discussion there tends not to be particularly flattering. Kevin Baas was spot on, IMHO, and this is likely why you got no action there at all despite your best efforts to do so (which also, ironically, resemble your failed attempts to paint me as a sock). Were I you, I would be saying "hmmm" just about now. But perhaps that is just me.

"his ban was WP:SNOW-endorsed in ANI" - Yes, as I said above it is a Fact that after the community expressed support for a 1 month ban and it was closed by an uninvolved administrator that Abd accepted and honored the ban. What's your point? --GoRight (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are again omiting stuff, like "In addition, the correct route is for Guy to issue a topic ban (if he thinks that is the right route to go), and then for the person who was topic banned to appeal."[27] in the reply of the arbitrator, which is quite at odds with your idea that the ban doesn't exist because Jed didn't appeal.

The first discussion first discussion was started by yours truly, saying "I would thank an uninvolved admin to give him a formal warning ({{Pseudoscience_enforcement}} will do) so he can be sanctioned if he keeps on with his behaviour.", and I can assure that I had a topic ban in mind. Also, I disagree with your statement: I think that any uninvolved person reading it will realize that Jed was really soapboxing, despite all that Kevin said, so I think that it's a good link for arguing in favor of Jed's ban. Saying that the second link does not show support fore a topic ban because only JzG says "ban" is plain wikilawyering. No, seriously, it is.

About other editors asking for a ban, even if nobody said the word "ban", it was bleedingly obvious that his edits were not welcome by many editors. See for example here, Verbal was asking that his comments were reverted in sight, just below Olonirish is saying that he is violating WP:SOCK, and just below him SA is saying that people can apply to administrators to get him blocked. A month I am telling Jed that I will have to start arguing for his ban if he doesn't change his behaviour[28]. So, they were asking for Jed to be blocked and reverted in sight, and you are going to say that they were not asking for a topic ban? Or, rather, are you going to say that these comments can't be interpreted as support for a topic ban?

About why editors were calling for his ban, if you look back at the period going from 30 November - 15 December 2008 (approx), in Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_20, if you search for the word "jed" and you read the replies given to his comments, you will see that most people were still being patient with him and giving him advice. It was Jed's own continuing behaviour that changed over time how editors treated him, not the existance of some obscure anti-CF cabal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So what happened December 15, if people were so patient with him then? Enric, that's about when the IP was blocked by JzG. About two weeks later, JzG blocked another IP, claiming it was Rothwell, which it wasn't. The only similarity was familiarity with cold fusion. Thought crime. People were giving Jed advice? The kind of advice I've seen has been, usually, "go away." Sure those people were asking for a topic ban. They were also very, very involved. Olorinish? Verbal? ScienceApologist?That was absolutely not the kind of discussion that could determine a ban. Watch.

I wonder if it has occurred to you that if an expert appears at an article, and sees it is full of nonsense -- as our article currently is (i.e., perfectly reasonable text from twenty years ago, when the science has moved on, and the errors made twenty years ago -- on all sides -- are now well understood, documented, covered in reliable secondary source, and on and on -- and the expert says so, and tries to provide information, that could look like "soapboxing"?

Banning people for soapboxing is quite dangerous, you might as well ban people for their POV. And if you imagine that you will end up with POV text by banning everyone who disagrees with your POV, well, quite simply, you won't. What you will get is narrow-minded POV and bad writing and continual disruption, as new people continue to arrive who think for themselves and don't take their knowledge from Wikipedia but from the actual sources. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's dangerous, but I think that in Jed's case it was clear that he was soapboxing. Editors who are soapbxing all the time are not helpful in writing articles and they can be quite a nuisance. There are people who have a POV and can keep it to themselves and be neutral when writing articles or commenting in the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 arbitrary break 1

(Outdent)

Enric, you should stop digging now. But since you haven't let me toss a bit of this dirt back in on top of you ...

(1) "I think that you are again omiting stuff, like ... which is quite at odds with your idea that the ban doesn't exist because Jed didn't appeal." - A possibly fair point on your part, however I would rate that comment as ambiguous at best. It is merely articulating what Carcharoth sees as the correct procedure to be followed. It is not making a comment on the existence, or lack thereof, of a valid ban either way, at least IMHO.

I don't know what you mean by "my idea that the ban doesn't exist because Jed didn't appeal." I don't believe that I have ever said anything remotely resembling that position, but if I have let me clarify things here by clearly stating that this is NOT what I am saying. I am most decidedly NOT claiming that Jed's ban, or lack thereof, has anything whatsoever to do with whether he appeals or not. Such a concept is nonsense. Of course he can be banned without his having appealed it.

His current block, however, is a separate issue. He does remain indefinitely blocked by MastCell. This block remains in effect because it has never been appealed, which is not to say that an appeal would automatically be successful in removing the block. The simple facts are that he is currently blocked and has not appealed the block.

My actual claim is that he is not banned simply because there was no community discussion in which the community actually (a) discussed banning him, and more importantly (b) was closed by an uninvolved administrator who explicitly stated that there was a ban.

My claim is not rocket science or even wikilawyering. The simple fact of the matter is that there was never a community discussion held among uninvolved editors which ended with a declaration of a ban on Rothwell. If there is please point me to it because neither of the two links you provided above (i.e. the first link or the second link) fits that bill.

(2) Cold Fusion is generally considered to be Fringe Science, not Pseudoscience, so I fail to see how an appeal to the Pseudoscience Arbcom ruling even applies.

(3) Assuming it does apply, however, in reading the Pseudoscience template you provided we find that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." - To the best of my knowledge no administrator has issued such a warning to Rothwell, and if they have that warning is rendered ineffective by the fact that Rothwell has not been logged as having been notified in the aforementioned place.

Given this it will be hard to claim that JzG's assertion of a ban is covered by the Pseudoscience ruling, and as we have already seen there has been no community discussion of imposing an actual ban. This was, perhaps, Carcharoth's point in the quote you highlighted above and why Arbcom refused to take up the case at all and calling such action premature. Why? Because there is no community discussion to even review on the matter beyond a hand full of involved editors.

(4) "I can assure that I had a topic ban in mind" - That may be, but you never SAID that was what you were asking for. In fact you explicitly asked for a warning, not a ban. A warning is not a ban. This is a fact. Given this I find it ridiculous for you to try and contend that this discussion justifies your assertion that a ban on Rothwell even exists.

(5) "Saying that the second link does not show support fore a topic ban because only JzG says "ban" is plain wikilawyering. No, seriously, it is." - I stand corrected. JzG (aka Guy) did mention a ban in that thread. I missed that bullet when I skimmed it apparently. OK, so Guy mentioned a topic ban in one comment. No one supported that comment. The most severe thing mentioned by anyone else in the thread was a semi-protect and THAT was denied!

Come on, Enric. One editor mentioned a ban in a nine comment thread and you call that evidence of a ban. It is simply prima facie ridiculous.

(6) "So, they were asking for Jed to be blocked and reverted in sight, and you are going to say that they were not asking for a topic ban? Or, rather, are you going to say that these comments can't be interpreted as support for a topic ban?" - They? Who's they? Are you talking about the WP:RBI comment? That was JzG too.

The only other mention of reverting was from JoshuaZ and that appears more like an attempt to give these guys something so that they will simply go away and stop plugging up AN. Even so, suggesting that you revert disruptive comments is nothing new, and NO, SUGGESTING REVERTING IS NOT supportive of a ban.

(7) "It was Jed's own continuing behaviour that changed over time how editors treated him, not the existance of some obscure anti-CF cabal." - This may be, but what does it have to do with whether Rothwell has a ban or not? And for the record, I have made no claims of there being an anti-CF Cabal. --GoRight (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

about (1):

Your comment above "I am most decidedly NOT claiming that Jed's ban, or lack thereof, has anything whatsoever to do with whether he appeals or not." is at odds with this statement you made one week ago: "I still maintain that Rothwell is not technically banned, even though he is effectively so unless he challenges his block which he is unlikely to do."[29]. So, what is that difference between being "technically banned" and being "effectively banned", why is it so important that you feel that you need to bring it up in the first place, and why doesn't it happen unless Jed challenges his block?

I told you some 3 weeks ago that you didn't need such a community discussion because of WP:BAN#Community_ban "where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her"[30] and you said that it didn't apply because "[no] uninvolved admins [that I am aware of]have been asked to unblock him and refused (...) MastCell has blocked his account, true, but even that has never really been appealed. For all we know that too would be reversed upon examination of a full set of evidence." [31]

So, yes, you actually contended that the ban on Jed is dependant on whether or not an appeal is done (and on whether the appeal is rejected or not). P.D.: Ooooh, and on your comment right you repeat again your argument that he is not banned because he is only indef-blocked by MastCell, which is very clearly an argument to bypass the second condition at WP:BAN#Community_ban cited above, because you know perfectly that "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her". Nice wikilawyering there. And now go appeal Jed's ban somewhere instead of repeating flawed arguments every time that we discuss about Abd's ban.

about (2)(3) Ugh, I botched my comment above, the only reference to WP:PSCI should have been "[in that discussion I said] "I would thank an uninvolved admin to give him a formal warning ({{Pseudoscience_enforcement}} will do)"". To clarify, my request to WP:AE invoked WP:PSCI, but I realized the problem about Cold Fusion not being covered by it and later requests didn't invoke it.

(4) Ooooh, maybe I wanted a formal warning by an admin under WP:PSCI so I could send him flowers and kisses. As opposed to, you know, being free to invoke the discrectionary sanctions to get him kicked out of the article? And you say that me requesting a formal warning of discrectionary sanctions is not evidence of a ban because I didn't say explicitly that my final intention was getting him banned if he didn't change his behaviour? In spite of me saying that I actually wanted that? That's wikilawyering. And bullshit, too.

(5)(6)(7) If it's so clear that a community discussion was needed and it's so clear that it didn't happen, and it is so clear that there wasn't a consensus anyuwhere for a ban.... then, in that case, an appeal on Jed's ban will be easy and it will be most surely successful, so go appeal Jed's ban already dude.

This is becoming silly, we are starting to go into circles, and your behaviour entered WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory days ago already. If you keep bringing up the non-existance of Jed's ban in the middle of discussions of Abd's ban then I will report you for tendentious editing and general disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it is you, my friend. The problem you seem to be having is that you do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the difference between being WP:BANned and being WP:BLOCKed. They are not the same thing at all.

So when I say that Jed is not banned, I mean simply that he is not WP:BANned because he isn't and never really was. This is what I mean by he is not technically banned (i.e. there has been no community WP:BAN issued against him).

On the other hand we both know that Rothwell is WP:BLOCKed by MastCell, and given that he is not allowed to evade that block by posting under another account or an IP. This is the rule that allows you to revert his comments on sight, BTW, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a WP:BAN. This is what I mean by he is effectively banned (i.e. in the sense that he is not currently allowed to post because he is not allowed to evade the block). None of that makes a block a WP:BAN, though.

"So, yes, you actually contended that the ban on Jed is dependant on whether or not an appeal is done (and on whether the appeal is rejected or not)." - No I didn't as I just explained. Any such appeal with be applicable to his WP:BLOCK, not a WP:BAN that does not exist. Hopefully this clears that distinction up for you.

"he is not banned because he is only indef-blocked by MastCell" - You need to choose your words more carefully. A more accurate statement would have been "he is not banned but he IS indef-blocked by MastCell". Your statement implies that I contend Rothwell is not banned BECAUSE of the indef-block by MastCell, which is obviously nonsense and I never made any such claim. My claims are simple. (1) Rothwell is not WP:BANed. (2) Rothwell is WP:BLOCKed. (3) Being WP:BLOCKed does NOT imply that you are WP:BANed. (4) Being indefinitely WP:BLOCKed has a similar effect to being WP:BANned without actually being a WP:BAN.

"because you know perfectly that "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her"" - No, I do not know this and neither do you because Jed has never challenged the block. THAT is the whole point.

"To clarify, my request to WP:AE invoked WP:PSCI, but I realized the problem about Cold Fusion not being covered by it and later requests didn't invoke it" - OK, well at least we have found a point that we can agree on. I am curious though, if you truly believe that Rothwell is already WP:BANned why are you still lobbying for a ban? If that is the case haven't you already won?

"And you say that me requesting a formal warning of discrectionary sanctions is not evidence of a ban ..." - This is correct. Requesting a formal warning does NOT constitute evidence that a ban already exists (if anything is suggests the exact opposite). It does not, for that matter, actually constitute evidence that you were ultimately seeking to have him banned (although I certainly accept that this would have been your intent). That statement only serves as evidence that you requested a formal warning of discretionary sanctions and nothing further ... and this is something that you failed to get BTW. Let us not forget that little point.

"so go appeal Jed's ban block already dude." - Sorry, not my place. That is for Jed to do, not me.

"If you keep bringing up the non-existance of Jed's ban in the middle of discussions of Abd's ban then I will report you for tendentious editing and general disruption." - Well, you do what you think is right but in that case it would be you creating the disruption, not me, just like when you took Abd's declaration that he was going to ignore wikiepdia user WMC's purported ban to AN. There was no real point to discuss but you made a big flap anyway. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You are choosing again to ignore the conditions set at WP:BAN#Community_ban by wikilawyering about Jed not being really banned until he contests his indefinite block, which is not a requirement that appears at that page. Btw, I notice that you make incidence in that I failed to get that WP:AE petition, without mentioning that Jehochman closed it because Jed had stopped editing, so misrepresentation again. About other stuff in your comment, hey, at least we can agree on some points :P

Well, this is going in circles. If you bring up again Jed's ban in the middle of other ban discussions, then, well.... first I'll check if your comment is actually causing disruption... and check if you brought it up as a legitimate example... you know, in case I'm just being too picky about stuff, or simply blinded by my annoyance at this sort of circular discussions. If I see that you cause disruption, then I'll just go and report you somewhere for disruption and dead horse hitting, and point people to this comment and to this discussion. Other people can decide who is the one causing disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"You are choosing again to ignore the conditions set at WP:BAN#Community_ban by wikilawyering about Jed not being really banned until he contests his indefinite block ..." - I am not ignoring anything. Like I said, because of the indefinite block he is effectively banned in the sense that he is not allowed to evade his block (which is all WP:BAN#Community_ban means). My position is in 100% agreement with that section. So, like I have said many times before and you still don't seem to understand the point ... Jed is effectively banned, although not technically so, by virtue of being indefinitely blocked which is not at all the same thing as being WP:BANed by community discussion and consensus (there, is that precise enough for you?). Note that he is not listed at the location designated for recording such discussions and community bans.

Again, unless and until Jed challenges the block we won't know whether any uninvolved admins will be willing to unblock, and until then any declaration of his having been banned are premature.

"I notice that you make incidence in that I failed to get that WP:AE petition, without mentioning that Jehochman closed it because Jed had stopped editing" - My statement was a simple statement of fact. You asked for a warning and none was issued. Period. Jehochman's reasons for closing aren't particularly germain to my point which is why I didn't mention them. For example, now that you have pointed out his rationale for closing notice that the validity of my point remains unchanged. You still haven't received the warning that you asked for. Thus, the point you raise is irrelevant and unnoteworthy in the context of my statement.

And if Jed has stopped editing who's comments are those that keep being reverted? Do we have a Rothwell imposter on the loose or something? This point is similar to when you keep going on and on about how we need to ban Rothwell while at the same time claiming that he is already banned. --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, stop getting stuff wrong. Jehochman closed the AE thread because Jed had stopped editing in those days. Jed edited again later, but only days after after Jehochman's close, and his edits finally caused the ANI thread. He hasn't edited in a while, but that's been in the last few weeks, not when that thread was closed.

(and about WT:BAN, yeah, it seems that you were right about an unblock request being needed for the second condition to apply. Hum, the ANI thread probably doesn't show enough consensus by uninvolved editors to declare him banned by the first or the third conditions :P And, since he hasn't been editing in the last few weeks, it's probably not worth the pain of opening another discussion just to ask the community if he should be considered banned, unless he starts returning again.... or unless people start reposting Jed's comments with the argument that they can do that because he's not banned :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been on this kick for a long time, Enric. Anyone may revert back in edits of a blocked or banned editor, and the "ban" makes no difference. The editor reverting back in is responsible for the edit, as if they had made it themselves. This is very well established. I reverted back in the removed spelling correction from ScienceApologist to Cold fusion, as one example. The argument you imagine people will give is stupid. The editor signs his edits, so you can know it's Rothwell, and JedRothwell is blocked, and no new account has been established. So the IP edits are "block evasion," technically, though Rothwell isn't exactly making true evasive moves, or else he wouldn't sign the edits. You can revert his edits, but you are not required to, just as you were not required to remove the edits of that Nrcprm2026 sock, and it was petty to remove them if they were standing. However, when you have removed my restoration of useful material from him, you were, in fact, revert warring with me. You could have been sanctioned for that.... but I very rarely request sanctions over something so trivial. Strike that. Not very rarely. Just not. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't policy, practice says it isn't policy, it is not "establishied" policy, and simply repeating it doesn't make it policy. Verbal chat 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, please see WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, there is an actual difference between reverting the edits of indef-blocked editors and those of banned editors. And see WP:EVADE, for block evasion it doesn't matter if he signs his posts or not, he is still evading his block. If he pretended to be someone else then it would be both block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't say that there is an "actual difference," for, in fact, this is true for blocked editors as well. As to block evasion, that's tricky. An editor doesn't use an account for three years, but edits IP, which is his right. The old account is then blocked. Is it suddenly ban or block evasion and sock puppetry? Sure, you can consider it so, but only technically. Generally, Rothwell IPs aren't blocked, even though he doesn't rapidly hop, there are a few exceptions. (JzG charged block evasion in January, but, in fact, there hadn't been any, and certainly there was no deliberate evasion. JzG had misindentified and blocked another IP, not Rothwell, showing how much disruption can be caused by zealous enforcement of blocks and bans, sometimes.) I am now researching a case of an editor who was blocked for sock puppetry in 2007, and who continues to be blocked when discovered; there were POV issues, the blocking admins have been heavily involved in issues of interest to the editor. It's unclear what happened, but there wasn't any reason for indef block other than a single alleged sock puppet, which actually wasn't checkuser confirmed, but was only asserted based on WP:DUCK, which sometimes is misapplied. I didn't see evidence, so far, of actual disruption, aside from what ensued as a result of the blocks. Human nature is to defy restrictions, among a very substantial set of the population. We create disruption by blocking, there should be very good reasons. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:BAN is for banned editors, not for editors who are "only" indef-blocked, and not for editors who are temporaly blocked. It's only for banned editors.

Jed knew that he was banned from the talk page and edited it anyways. JzG blocked the wrong IPs, but the intent was clear. Jed knew that he was topic banned because he posted at the thread reminding of it right before he was blocked[32] (this time JzG got the right IP), and the first posting that he made the IP already had a notice from JzG announcing the ban [33] (just search for "considered banned" to find it). I can understand that in his first edit he didn't understand it, but it should have been clear to him by the time he made his last posting under that IP. And, yes, you are right that he wasn't technically evading a block since no IP that he had used had actually been blocked, so JzG made a mistake in his block summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jed knew that JzG, an involved administrator with a long history of negative interaction with Rothwell, had declared a ban. Rothwell isn't particularly wiki-sophisticated. All this meant to him was that an admin was throwing his weight around.... This is why admin use of tools when involved is quite serious, it completely trashes our reputation for neutrality. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He knew that he was banned from the page and he posted anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 arbitrary break 2

(Resume original indenting)

I'm not going to argue this extensively here because it's a waste of time. Just one point: You described a "premeditated plan." A premeditated plan is not a conspiracy, which, by definition, is a preplanned plot by more than one person. There was reference to this apparent game plan of Hipocrite's before he was unbanned, the unban was just an occasion for a specific mention. There is strong evidence that Hipocrite knew exactly what he was doing, and he had a specific goal. You came here to edit articles? Fine. If you throw shit at other editors and contributors, don't be surprised if some of it falls back on you. --Abd (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean throwing shit like baselessly accusing people of conspiring to ban people? Sure enough, some might fall back on you XD --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean, because I made no such accusation. If I'm wrong, please point it out, and please distinguish between a possible plan by Hipocrite (perhaps alone) and a "conspiracy," which means more than one person acting according to a plan. If you have no evidence, please retract the accusation. Otherwise, duck and cover, shit coming down. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I had too much free time in my hands, so I searched for some diffs:

• "Hipocrite, through the ban, had accomplished his mission at the article, (...) WMC may have been guilty of an overreaction, an understandable one, but Enric Naval knows what he's doing. To set the stage here, he was, at the least, in reckless disregard of the truth, framing and presenting a highly misleading picture (...) I now believe that Hipocrite's goal was to provoke responses from me that would result in a ban or block."[34]

• "You have been trying to get me banned for quite some time, that will all come out. It's all in the history, Enric. And you helped ban the other experts from the article or talk page, two of them, it's a long-term pattern. (...)"[35] (at least you then recognize that I am actually helpful sometimes)

The agenda-driven anti-CF cabal in wikipedia, playing dumb. Currently planning how to get more CF experts banned from Cold fusion so the cabal can keep pushing its anti-CF POV.

Anyways, I was trying to parse one of your latest comments in a moment of boredom, and I found this funny statement "(...) with the virtual cabal that I'm facing (...)". I suppose that you should read WP:TINC (There Is No Cabal). I'll just quote the best part "If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one. There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. Also, consider that if many people disagree with you, it may be just because you are wrong and/or in violation of the site policies (such as WP:UNDUE)." --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Virtual cabal" means a group of editors who act cooperatively in maintaining or asserting content or wikipolitical positions without actually being a cabal, i.e., a specific conspiracy. We see this, for example, with fringe editors who will back each other up and who may be able to get away with it underneath the radar. More of a problem, though, because it's more persistent, is Majority POV pushing. In other words, "virtual cabal" means "there is no conspiracy." That's why the word "virtual is there." If I'd meant conspiracy, I would have just said "cabal." That you think it means the opposite shows how you jump to conclusions. Watch, Enric, we'll see how many people disagree with me when the matter is raised where a few editors shouting won't have any effect. If you are right, hey, I win, because I end up spending more time with my children and grandchildren. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

*I* think that this means that you want to have your cake and eat it too. in other words, saying that there is a cabal while at the same time denying that you ever implied such a thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am curious as to how you would describe the situation that Abd refers to. Hypothetically, of course, if you believed that there was a group of editors, or several disparate groups of editors in different topic areas, whose editing practices had the effect of being a Cabal without their actually being in a conspiracy how would you describe such groups? What term would you use to convey the concept? --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no hypothesis for me, they tend to end up in long argumentations taht lead nowhere, see my other comments about me coming to wikipedia to edit articles and not to have long-winded arguments. Point at a group that actually exists and I might look to see if it's a cabal or if it's just something else. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that there is a significant constellation of editors who have an effect similar to that of a cabal. There are probably quite a number of these, but I've only encountered and been able to clearly identify one. Like many other distinctions, this one seems lost on you. Above, responding to GoRight, you string together events that were quite different, i.e., "he said this then did that," when there were intervening events that made a shift in intentions clear. The ready manufacture of ABF accusations is one of the cabal traits. I've had occasion, now, to correspond extensively with Jed Rothwell, and your concept of how pleased he allegedly is to discover that he can IP sock is laughable. He really WP:DGAF. Wikipedia is not anywhere near the center of his universe. When he stopped editing articles, he stopped using the old account; from his point of view, why bother? He comments on cold fusion issues because that is what he does. Not just here, all over the internet. He's been doing it for more than fifteen years. He's not, under present conditions, suited to be a Wikipedia editor, he considers it a waste of time, which is why his block hasn't been challenged. But I've reviewed a lot of his past posts, and he was generally quite accurate on the science, just quite blunt and judgmental about the intelligence of some Wikipedia editors. It's not uncommon for experts to think like that, look at Shanahan's attitude.... --Abd (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About Jed, I'll quote his own words "(...) If there is some mechanism within Wikipedia that is supposed to be blocking me, evidently it is not working. That is no concern of mine. I am pleased to learn that your methods of censorship sometimes fail, but I am not taking any steps to overcome them, since I do not what they are are. (...)"[36]

Also "Ah ha! I see that the "talk" pages are IP based. That's a dumb way to do it. And apparently you people are trying to ban me by banning the IP. Good luck! You will have to ban all of BellSouth. Apparently they assign IP addresses dynamically. I did not realize what "IP hopper" meant, but I am glad to see that I have stumbled upon a method of defeating you, and annoying you."[37]

To conclude, about your words above "your concept of how pleased he allegedly is to discover that he can IP sock is laughable. He really WP:DGAF". a) he was not "happy" like I said above, and he was not "[allegedly] pleased" like you said, in his own words he was "pleased" and "glad" at his disvocery b) I don't know why you considered that concept laughable, I personally found that Jed was getting enormous amounts of amusement from seeing us run in circles over his edits. In hindsight, I also find it slightly amusing, even if I was one of the editors running in circles. I suppose that in a few years I will be laughing when I remember the situation :P

About the cabal, I think that you should read WP:TINC with more attention, and start asking yourself if maybe so much people opposes simply because they think that you are wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all your scheming was for nought, as Hipocrite has retired. Curses! Honestly though, sad to see him go. Never good to take this place at all seriously. Verbal chat 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my very evil plans schewed by the human factor, how would have seen that coming. Yeah, Hipocrite took it too seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)