Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 21 May 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Your comment in the RfAr on Cold fusion topic bans

. Enric, there you present a very incomplete and inaccurate summary of my argument. I'd like you to reconsider. In summary, what you say is correct. The lack of those things doesn't prove that there is no ban; but there are other defects which, indeed, mean that there is no ban. A ban is generally considered to be a community affair, no individual can establish a ban -- as distinct from a block. However, I haven't been arguing that those things being missing is the problem with the ban, the lack of some of them only supports the central argument, which is that only one involved administrator decided that there was a ban, for whatever reasons, and then declared it and supported it with some blocks. By the way, two of the blocks were of IP not Rothwell or Pcarbonn. JzG sees Pcarbonn underneath every expression of POV that seems to support Cold fusion; he has a long history of involvement with the article and shouldn't be touching his admin tools in connection with it with a ten-foot pole, absent an emergency.

A topic ban may be established by anyone, actually. I could warn an editor that if they edit a certain article, they would be blocked, that their apparent goal there is disruption, etc. I've actually done this with an SPA editor with a clear COI. And then, if the topic ban were violated, an uninvolved administrator could block on that basis. Normally, though, such a warning would have more meaning and power if made by an administrator who has a block button.

The problem with JzG is that he argued for the ban, being involved, *and then concluded that it existed,* and enforced it with blocks -- and more. His obligation, being involved, would be to go to AN like any editor, and ask for a block or ban. And then a neutral administrator would make a decision. JzG is popular enough that he might get such a thing just because it's him asking, and that is how, in my opinion, newenergytimes.com got sustained in the local blacklist, and lenr-canr.org was globally blacklisted; the closing admin there disregarded the evidence against the blacklist almost entirely and seems to have accepted JzG's account uncritically.

There was no decision by a neutral administrator, this is why I say that there is no ban. I've seen this defect before; at some point, if the defect is pointed out, an admin takes responsibility for declaring the ban and handles necessaries such as logging it if broader enforcement is desired, warning the user, etc. But when there is dispute on the basis for the ban, and especially when the admin who claims there is a ban is involved and argued for the ban before it was claimed to exist, there is no ban. There is only a warning and/or a block, possibly improper.

JzG is asking ArbComm to ratify something quite dangerous: censorship of content. The only basis for a meat puppetry charge is similarity of POV. So anyone with a POV that supports Cold Fusion could then be considered banned. And this has actually happened, JzG blocked IP that was not Rothwell, based only on his imagined similarity of arguments. From other evidence, I'm quite confident it wasn't Rothwell. If JzG succeeds, this will be extended, I'm sure. Note that the only alleged linkspam and argument is Talk page comments by Rothwell. Rothwell explicitly doesn't edit articles. So preventing him from editing Talk, based on POV and alleged agenda, is pure censorship. He makes an inappropriate edit to talk, easy to take it out. Or to discuss it. Or to ignore it. He could be blocked for incivility, etc. But not for "POV pushing," since we expect that of SPAs and COI editors, that's why we ask them to limit their participation to Talk!

Thanks. So far, your whitelisting request, which I supported, is being pocket vetoed, looks like. We were told, when the lenr-canr.org delist request was being considered, "No problem: need a page, it can be whitelisted." Not if the arguments for blacklisting are swallowed and considered to apply to every page, no matter what! I'm afraid that it's political. I've been warned not to confront JzG, "pissing in the wind" is the description that was used. Well, I wasn't pissing at him, but he seems to have taken it that way. I simply disagreed with some actions, which became, as I investigated, a disagreement with a pattern of actions, but that's where it stood. I was considering the next step, which would have been, probably, involving a mediator, not AN as some suggested, and certainly not going to ArbComm, though I've been in private consultation with an arbitrator on a similar matter. I've avoided raising this issue with that arbitrator or others. So far. JzG popped the matter up, though. Well see if ArbComm takes the case or declines. Declining would be perfectly appropriate, on the face. But taking the case, well, it might be time to confront apparent admin abuse, and confirm it or reject it. --Abd (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(I hadn't seen you comment until now) sorry if my statement inaccurate, it's just a summary so I avoided going into detail. I added "5 the banning admin is involved" in order to patch it a bit.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. I think that Jed is a SPA and a COI editor, and that he is here with the explicit and exclusive purpose of POV pushing the fuck out of the talk page.

whitelisting is stuck because of dealing with a complex issue + long comments + derailement of discussion. It will probably get stuck unanswered until it gets so old that some admin finally decides to get it out of the way one way or the other. It doesn't matter that there was spamming or not, what matters is that there is no reliability or copyvio problem with those two specific links.

One thing, you are talking about two IPs that were blocked, but who belonged to a person who was neither Pcarbonn nor Jed. I suppose you mean User_talk:69.228.220.30 and User_talk:69.228.207.247 from 31 December. The point is moot because they would have been blocked anyways for outrageous POV-pushing edits, and of course because of naked wikilawyering and playing stupid --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. What are the guidelines regarding COI editors? (They are stronger than for SPAs). WP:COI suggests that COI editors not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. What are they supposed to do? They are to make suggestions in Talk. Read the guideline, it doesn't prohibit their participation in Talk. Why do we have the restriction? It is because someone with a COI is likely to have or to express, preferentially, a POV. "POV-pushing" is offensive under two conditions: the most serious is the making of contentious edits to articles, where it becomes a burden. The less serious, and the most dangerous to try to stop, is when they present repetitive arguments in Talk, and continue beyond the point where it is clear that they are rejected by consensus. "POV-pushing edits" to Talk pages aren't, as a general matter, offensive and they do not violate guidelines. As to "playing stupid," well, it used to be that WP:AGF was a policy, and that wasn't dropped because AGF isn't important, it's because it's a tricky policy to enforce. You just violated it (though only as a general matter).

What was going on here? Basically, my objection to the ban and block of Rothman was procedural; and had it been that action alone, I probably would not have confronted it to the extent that I did. The more important issue, indeed, is the blacklisting. We'll get to that. The pocket veto of your whitelisting request is significant, and it calls into question the whole blacklist/whitelist process, which is being used to control content, not just linkspam, and which will be examined in due course. Here, though, I saw the blacklistings and realized that this was possibly improper. I was not aware at that point of the extent of JzG's involvement. I asked him to reverse them. He refused, with a barrage of arguments. I requested delisting here; this was made moot by JzG going to meta and asking for blacklisting there -- without informing any of us. However, the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com is still only local. So I became aware of the situation and started participating in the Cold fusion article. I then saw the claims of a topic ban against Rothwell, and I looked into it -- I always examined, with care, all the evidence that was presented. And I found it was defective. This wasn't mere wikilawyering. When an involved administrator takes action like that, it almost always inflames the situation and makes affected editors even more uncivil. Now, Rothwell was editing using two IPs. It appears that he has two regular places where he accesses the internet, both in Atlanta. Probably home and office. There is no evasion, no IP socking, because he always signs his edits. (However, if he evades a block by rebooting his modem or router, intentionally or unintentionally, it would be block evasion.) He edited for more than a week, with lots of involved editors reading it and commenting. Some were removing his edits because of the asserted ban. Nothing was done. The IP was not blocked. But when it was pointed out that a ban doesn't exist if it is not enforced, and when another editor went to JzG talk and questioned the ban and its basis, JzG then blocked Rothwell IP. There wasn't any serios disruption, no emergency.

Rather obviously, he was enforcing his own ban, a ban that he shouldn't have made in the first place. Please read the comments of myself -- and my evidence page -- and the comments of admin DGG, ex-admin Durova (on of the most respected Misplaced Pages editors), and arbitrator Carcharoth, one of the very best of our administrators. Now, he had simply been questioned on his Talk page, he wasn't being harassed, he hadn't been hauled before WP:AN/I, there was no dispute that could not be handled through ordinary process at a much lower level than ArbComm. He'd made a block and it was good or bad, and unless someone actually challenged it, he wasn't obligated to do anything. Asking him about it, asserting the problems with it, isn't a challenge. Yet he went to ArbComm; but did he raise the real issue? No. He made it appear that this issue was whether or not Rothwell should be banned. That could be argued either way, in fact, and we don't go to ArbComm with a problem unless lesser means have failed. Some arbitrators, initially, were sucked into giving advice about the ban, assuming that what had been said to them was true and balanced.

Why did he go to ArbComm? I could speculate, but that's all it would be. The result was as would be expected from precedent, unless something happens to change it. Request denied. Yet some are treating this as a vindication. It should be remembered that JzG made the request and it is his request that is being denied. And, because of the very real danger to all editors from the precedent that would be established had he actually been confirmed in what he asked for, I was forced to intervene with my comments, and then I was asked to provide evidence to back up what I was asserting (basically, involvement of JzG in the article -- which he had previously denied -- and actions taken in the presence of that involvement). There is much more going on than you see, Enric. JzG is not the problem. The problem is a culture and behavior that has arisen among some administrators, who become increasingly burned out fighting what they see as POV-pushing, vandalism, and disruption, until they start to take short-cuts. JzG was involved with Cold fusion, very clearly. He sees "POV-pushing." And somehow other editors are missing it, they are tolerating "fringe sources," and all that. He edits these out and they return and they stick. Well, he's an administrator, he's popular, and apparently he's gotten away before with going ahead when involved. So he just does it. He bans Rothwell. He blocks him and blacklists his web site the same day. Rothwell actually honored the block, at least he didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen, but when JzG eventually blocked him again, he cited block evasion as one of the reasons. That was from those IPs blocked by JzG who were not Rothwell.

You are focusing on Rothwell. What you may not realize is that a pattern of incivility by administrators and established editors that continues for a long time can create -- in fact it usually creates -- incivility in response. What Rothwell would be like if he were treated like the expert that he is ("fringe"? maybe, but expert nevertheless, he knows the field and he's trusted by LENR conferences to edit papers, apparently. plus there is his book and the movie he scripted), I can't say. He has a reputation among people in the field of being abrasive; but my guess is that this could be contained. As it stands, Rothwell is a sitting duck for being banned. JzG could easily have gone to AN and obtained a ban, without the problem of his involvement, and that was pointed out by at least one arbitrator. Is Rothwell banned? That is a very complex question, which is currently moot. He's blocked. Bans only apply to editors who aren't blocked!

The big issue here is administrative intervention while involved, and it's created some difficult situations. If this matter does actually get up to ArbComm, and if JzG is intransigent, I predict, he will be desysopped. It will be a bloody mess, seriously disruptive. I've been trying to avoid this, and there are numerous steps to take before this question would appear before ArbComm again. Except that I just discovered that JzG is covered by an ArbComm sanction already, and it's possible that he's been violating it. I'm not prepared to assert that unless it's the opinion of other experienced editors that the time is ripe for it. What I'm hoping is that JzG's friends will restrain him, will point out that the course he is taking is leading to a cliff. He's not going to listen to me, I suspect.

At each stage in my approach to JzG, and in discussions on the blacklist page and on meta, his arguments shifted. He initially emphasized copyright issues, as he had in the past. That was actually libel, because there wasn't anything behind it but speculation and weak inference. One of the biggest shifts was in the argument he made before ArbComm, the claim of meat puppetry. When an action is justified by shifting arguments, in my experience, there is a hidden basis, which may be as simple as "I did it and therefore it must be right and if my first reasons turn out to be defective, there must be another reason." I've seen it again and again from administrators on and off wiki: boss fires employee, because the employee was involved in a loud argument. When it turns out that the employee had been attacked with, say, racial epithets, the reason for the firing becomes "employee was doing poor work." And when it's shown that performance reviews were good, another reason is asserted.

If JzG would simply acknowledge the error of acting when involved, the focus would move away from him. Misplaced Pages does not punish, it simply protects; at least that's the theory. But if he continues to insist that it was all okay ... I do not predict it will turn out well for him. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(such a long post... took me a bit to know what to reply)

AGF is not a suicide pact, specially when it's the third SPA on a row wikilawyering the exact same point (notice the crucial difference between "defending the same point" and "making good-faith-straining wikilawyering on the same point")

At the end of the day, Jed was a SPA that had been disruptive in a talk page for a long period of time. I think that he was rightfully topic banned for that.

Now, you say that there are procedural problems on how JzG handled the situation (both ban and blacklisting/removal of links). I already suggested you to either raise the issue at WP:AN or make a RFC using your User:Abd/JzG page. Please consider doing it already

Finally, you are seeing ghosts here. The whitelisting is not "pocket veto"ed, it is stuck was stuck, while I was writing Dirk accepted part of the first one and is looking at the second one. I also see some issues with "Jed didn't edit for a month afthe the IP block" and other stuff, I'm not sure that you are getting the timeline right, or undertanding why dynamic IPs are blocked only for short periods of time even if the editor behind the IP should get a longer block. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* and the second whitelisting is declined because "the ISBN number is enough" and links can change.... geeez.... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No ghosts. I flapped and waved my hands about pocket veto in a few places.... It's supposed to be easy for legitimate editors to get a whitelisting. It wasn't. Why not? I'm not going to speculate, I'd prefer to assume that there are merely some coincidences. Rothwell didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen (Well, 29 or 30 days, substantial compliance). He might have edited from a different IP on user Talk pages, but that's hardly disruptive -- unless the user didn't want the attention. Look, JzG asserted block violation, it would be up to him to show it. I'm going to assume, though, that if JzG was asserting block violation, he'd have blocked the other IPs. I reviewed his log of blocks. I understand thoroughly about dynamic IP. Should the editor get a longer block? Perhaps. But it shouldn't be an involved admin who decides. You seem to be missing this little detail. JzG is heavily involved. Not just a couple of edits. If I'm seeing ghosts, you might also dismiss DGG and Durova? Think she's hallucinating? As to RfC, lower process hasn't been exhausted. JzG popped an issue immediately to ArbComm, he's claiming confirmation, but that's preposterous, his request was roundly rejected; he simply got a little supporting comment from some not-surprising sources (and even that is possibly misinterpreted). Jed was disruptive, yes, in a context where there was very serious and extended POV pressure from the opposite direction. What he'd have been like without that, I can't tell. Have you noticed my appealing his ban, though? That's not where I'd start! Rather, the abuse of admin tools is very, very serious, and I have admin support on that. I'm trying to get JzG to take it seriously. If he doesn't, yes, probably an RfC/U. I'd very much like to avoid that. While Misplaced Pages can be difficult to predict, I can fairly confidently predict the ultimate result: one of two options: JzG apologizes to the community, or he's desysopped. The precedents and the consequences of blowing the matter off are far too clear and strong.

Think how this looks, if this gets to the media: New Energy Times publishes an article by Pcarbonn on the Misplaced Pages article. The article isn't a hit piece on Misplaced Pages, it actually defends Misplaced Pages. Pcarbonn is, as a direct result, topic banned and, at about the same time, New Energy Times is blacklisted. In this case, there was no linkspamming at all, the blacklist addition was unilaterally done, without discussion, by JzG. (Any admin can do it, it's a protected page.) The blacklist is being used to control content. That's entirely outside its mission, but, hey, give some people some power, they can find new ways to use it as they like.

I've responded to Beetstra. We could link to whatever we want, I showed how. What would happen? I'm not sure. It would force the issue, but it might be claimed that this was "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point." Except that the link wouldn't be disruptive, the response to the link would, possibly I'd say that editorial consensus should prevail, not the blacklist, which was only intended as a means of controlling otherwise uncontrollable linkspam.

Rothwell's alleged linkspam: have you realized that the blacklist doesn't prevent what he was doing? Since the blacklist doesn't prevent it, blacklisting is purely punitive. It simply prevents editors and editorial consensus at an article from making the decision about using a source or providing a link to a copy. In any case, this is, as well, an important issue, and it isn't only about Cold fusion. If it's done with this issue, it's being done elsewhere as well. Linkspam is quite clearly defined, and neither Rothwell's signatures -- not links but a title with no link -- nor, absolutely, NewEnergyTimes.com were not linkspammed at all. JzG managed to raise a barrage of irrelevant arguments, he's pretty good at it. And he's got, shall we say, friends, disposed to assume that he's right, without investigating or weighing the arguments.

Enric, I know what I'm talking about. At least usually! --Abd (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

30 days thing: Ah, you are right that it was was 30 days, if you only look at the blocks. According to User:Abd/JzG, JzG blocked the first IP for 1 month in 18 December 2008, and then blocked two other IPs for block evasion on 31 December believing that it was Jed . On 26 January he blocked another IP for block evasion, this time it was really Jed and the IP had been editing only since 17 January so the one month block had already expired. Now, you see, there is only one little problem.... In 31 December JzG had announced Jed's topic ban from the talk page. That means that the IP should have been blocked for ban violation and not for block evasion.... The IP would have been blocked anyways, JzG just picked a mistaken reason.....

RFC: well, then talk to JzG again if you want, but I doubt that he pays attention to your request. I think that a RFC/U is simply unavoidable if you want to pursue this matter. Not sure of how useful it will be because I think that you are mixing up valid and invalid issues.

Whitelist: well, I don't agree with the whitelisters criteria, but I don't think that they have applied that criteria because of a conspiracy to censor lenr-canr. I'm sure that they would have applied that same criteria to any other online book link on any blacklisted site. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the ban vs block. Basic problem: JzG was involved; as such he, by rights, could neither block nor declare a ban. I mentioned the fact that Rothwell substantially complied with the original block because block evasion was, in fact asserted. The erroneous blocks as Rothwell have double significance. Again, this is JzG, being involved with the article, using his tools to block based solely on POV. And this theme is continued in his RfAr: he asked ArbComm to confirm that Rothwell could be banned under the Pcarbonn topic ban. And tossed in Gen ato for good measure. He's involved, and when admins are involved, their judgment can be warped. Yes, probably, RfC/U, unless someone talks some sense into JzG, I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to listen to me. My obligation is simply to say it to him, not to stick his nose in it. But I'm getting indications from respected editors off-wiki that there are actually many examples like this, I've just researched the situation with Cold fusion. I may want to collect evidence more thoroughly -- off-wiki -- before filing an RfC, and then give JzG an opportunity, privately, showing him th evidence, to come to some agreement. Please understand, Enric, that before I file an RfC it will be vetted by experienced editors. Remember, I can't do it by myself, it takes two, as I recall. Take a look again at the RfAr, at those who commented on admin action when involved. Do you think I'd challenge a popular administrator like JzG without support? Now, JzG actually isn't the worst offender, among admins who cheerfully act when involved. It just happens that I stumbled across some very clear examples here. My hope is that JzG will smell the coffee, realize that he made a mistake, and simply acknowledge it and agree not to do it again. If he did that, ArbComm would not desysop him, I'd predict, so I wouldn't even go there. It's intransigence that puts him at risk. Of course, if he's right, if his actions were not violations of policy, then he'd have nothing to fear from my approach.

Now, as to the whitelist, I did not allege and do not believe that there is a "conspiracy to censor lenr-canr." So why you'd even say that is beyond me. Except that I do understand Misplaced Pages and human beings. My point is that they, the blacklist admins, shouldn't be applying those criteria! They have invented their own standards, they have usurped power from ordinary editors, all very quietly. And believing, I'm sure, that this is best for the project. I don't think that will go down well when it is challenged in a wider forum, plus, consider this: imagine a media report on the fact that PCarbonn wrote an article in New Energy Times, an article which I think described the situation here fairly accurately. The result: he was topic banned from the topic that he knows well, and New Energy Times was blacklisted by one of PCarbonn's chief critics. JzG also seemed confused, he thought that Rothwell was the publisher of PCarbonn's article, so these are all connected. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good God, please tell me that User:Dtobias (or some other old foe of JzG) is not telling you off-wiki that you have his support to go against JzG.... I fear that you might be being convinced to pursue a sterile course of action just because it helps someone to annoy JzG

About whitelist's standards, Beetstra replied to you that "The purpose of this blacklist is as it is defined by the community here, and 'enforced' by admins, which may differ from the 'intended purpose of the blacklist'" . I'll be following this, if only to see what is this "wider forum" that you want to bring this to :) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Menudo (band) your nuetral edits are being vandaled by someone can you protect page? Thanks for reading.--66.229.250.178 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Re: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY

AfD

I think that you should start it only if you can do the whole job, which means you shouldn't begin with this or that but take an hour or two and list all the diplomatic relations articles from all countries that are not notable and list them for deletion based on Serbia-Luxembourg precedent. Keep in mind that some articles are notable and long like Russia-Serbia relations. There are a lot of long higher quality articles regarding the relations of New Zealand for an example so keep your eyes open for those. There might be some surprising places where you will find a longer article, not just a sentence, for an example I wrote an article on relations with San Marino. However most of these good or good as they can be articles got buried under the pile of almost bot-like created articles with one or two sentences, sometimes even about two countries that have no diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level; therefore I support your action entirely (but only if you can do the job properly which also means that it might consume two hours or so of your time).--Avala (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Manufactured scandal, Misplaced Pages assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Language

You are, I gather, not a native English speaker and so may not appreciate that your language in this talk is unacceptably uncivil. Please amend it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it a bit. Thanks for the warning. I am a native Spanish speaker. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Another non-native speaker here who doesn't see the problem. Enric's original language seems to be commensurate with the stupidity of taking these sources seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The F word should not be used lightly and references to other editors being mad may also be taken amiss. The comment I read came across to me as irate, crude and vulgar and I doubt that Enric Naval wishes to be thought of in this way. Of course, this may be a generational matter - I recall when such language would lead to instant censure or dismissal. Such invective weakens over time - folk used to be shocked by damn, which I find innocuous - but there are both old and very young readers on Misplaced Pages who should be considered. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wontedly tell speakers of English as a second language to skirt having any bash at the word fuck altogether. Although it's heard in movies all the time, this word has many nuances and if put mistakenly by someone who doesn't understand them, can and will very easily sound no more friendly than "I wish you were dead, asshole." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well.... thanks for the good advice, I'll be more careful in the future when using certain English words. (and Warden, I understand better your comment a few months ago about non-native English speakers editing wikipedia) I just had a misunderstanding in ANI because I used "harassment" to describe mild questioning. (It could have been worse... a few years ago I could have used "molest", which an unaware Spanish person will translate as "molestar" (disturb, annoy) and which has no sexual connotations whatsover in Spanish and is very commonly used in many situations...) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll like this one then, Enric: In North American English, annoy means only to "bother" or "disturb" but in UK English, annoy can mean "molest." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, very good one, that. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Chile-Whatever_relations#Barbados.E2.80.93Chile_relations

I want to !vote in this AfD, but it's confusing as to which articles are actually being nominated. I suspect that's why no one else has voted yet. Any chance you could maybe refactor it a bit to make it easier to figure out. Also, I would suggest removing Chile–Estonia relations as the that AfD is still open, and it's weird to have two AfDs for the article running simultaneously. It also invites all the !keep voters over there to vote !keep on the omnibus AfD on the basis of that one article, thereby confusing and possibly derailing the whole thing. Yilloslime _C 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I stroke out the article that already had a AfD, you are right about the problems that it could cause. I formatted the whole thing again, tell me what you think of it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! One question though: What's up with the with the "Barbados-Chile" and "Chile-Mexico relations" subsections? Are those articles being considered seperately? I'm guessing no, but I still think it's confusing to have those dangling sections. Maybe they could be moved to the talk page?--doesn't look like there are any !votes in those sections. Yilloslime _C 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS I do intend to vote at some point, but I also want to check the articles over thoroughly first, so I probably won't cast my opinion today.

Yes, I know that they fill the page, but I think that those conversations are necessary to remove from the nomination any article that happens to be notable.

I'm not sure what to do with them. And I'm afraid that I might be accused of hiding stuff if I move them myself to the talk page. As the nominator, I don't want to start making decissions on what to move to the talk page; many users would see it as inappropiate, and I'm not sure that I can be neutral in my decissions. Feel free to move yourself anything that you think necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• 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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages". 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))

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For jumping on the Websense case and restoring criticism that appeared credible and relevant. And for generally seeming to the point and neutral. II | (t - c) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I try to do it as well as I can. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 2 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Guidelines and post "an additional individualized view to clarify 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 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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. 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", 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

• 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
• I told JzG to stop replying to Abd's posts in Talk:Cold fusion
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Misplaced Pages research and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:59, 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• 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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:13, 13 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Misplaced Pages Revolution
• Misplaced Pages by numbers: Misplaced Pages's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:27, 20 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 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It was my impression that violations of policy do not need consensus to be repaired? --DIREKTOR 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages consensus a "disputed region". --DIREKTOR 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 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 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GustavusPrimus

I noted that in a deletion review log dating from May 15, 2008 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 , 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Misplaced Pages
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:11, 29 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)

Is Storms RS? What about "heat dissipated into the lattice"?

Enric, I see that you have been discussing the removed material with Hipocrite. He's demanded that I not edit his Talk page for any purpose whatever, and I have no need to do so. I assume this is okay here. If not, please tell me.

However, some things should be said. First of all, Storms is RS, which doesn't automatically mean "unbiased," or "usable for fact" What independent book publication shows is notability. If RS states something, reference may be made in articles to that, it is, by definition, notable opinion; if it's controversial, it should be attributed.

As to undue weight, the guideline method for determining undue weight is to use the weight as it exists in sources. If we do that, and if we require peer-reviewed reliable source on the science, we have a problem: it would, I'd agree, create undue weight, if not done properly, as to overall scientific opinion, which probably remains very skeptical of cold fusion. However, we have, as you know, a major review of the field in 2004 that showed divided opinion, not nearly as skeptical as our article has typically shown. Editors have treated "not conclusive" as if it were "rejected." The two are quite different.

In the case of N-rays, the principal experiment alleged to show the existence of N-rays was conclusively shown to be a result of improper technique (reliance on subjective observation without double-blind). The situation with the original cold fusion report is quite different: there were two basic reports: excess heat and radiation. The radiation was an error, retracted. Radiation is reported, later, at either lower levels (neutrons) or of a different kind (CR-39 detection of copious alpha radiation, though I've been hearing noises that the level of alpha radiation is lower than would be expected.)

But the excess heat findings were never successfully impeached, and we have plenty of RS that indicates that the excess heat finding is worthy of respect; start with the 2004 DoE report, where, when we know that nuclear physicists are about 90% strongly anti-cold fusion (estimate of the physicist retained by CBS), we still had fifty percent (that would be 9/18 reviewers) saying that evidence for excess heat was "convincing." I haven't done the analysis myself, but I've seen an analysis that claimed that, if the nuclear physicists are excluded, the finding would have been 2:1 in favor of excess heat being convincing. Why exclude the nuclear physicists? Just for analysis! One could then exclude the chemists and see what result is obtained: from other evidence, it appears that "belief" in cold fusion is far more common among chemists (and even more among electrochemists) than among nuclear physicists. It's a turf battle, Enric, and the physicists had the money and power. There was hundreds of millions of dollars in hot fusion research at stake.

All I'm saying is that we should tell the whole story, as reflected in reliable sources including media sources. We just need to be clear about what is what; I'm coming to the conclusion that we should fork into at least two articles, one to cover the science (peer-reviewed RS preferred, with summary of the media and other findings from the other article), and the other to cover the history (academic sources still preferred, but increased use of media reliable source.) There is a ton of source on the history: Huizenga, Taubes, many others. We tell only a tiny fraction of the story that could be told, and all this tussle over undue weight is responsible; if we were following guidelines, our content would have expanded; instead, because peer-reviewed RS on the negative side is actually thin, I suspect that, long-term, this has functioned to keep out much adequately sourced material. The encyclopedia is being damaged, compared to what it could be. In no way and in no article should it be implied that cold fusion has won general acceptance, but we should not deprive our readers of knowing what the field is about!

Now, about the lattice absorption of energy. That was a theory given early prominence; in a complete history it should defintely be there, and I do think we should give the history of CF theory, it has evolved, it is not a static thing. But I don't know anyone still asserting that Mossbauer-link absorption of recoil is somehow responsible for the missing gamma rays. The energy in the classic Mossbauer effect is far lower than the energy released by d-d -> He4 fusion, and other mechanisms must be asserted.

Storms does address the Mossbauer possibility, to quote (p.179):

Direct coupling of nuclear energy to a lattice is observed during the Mossbauer process. The amount of energy coupled to the lattice by his process is very small compared to that being released by the cold fusion reactions. No evidence exists to support the belief that this process can couple high levels of nuclear energy. Consequently, a true absence of energetic particles resulting from the reaction of interest must be demonstrated before concluding that direct energy transfer to the host lattice can occur by a similar process.

Other CF theories don't require direct coupling. For example the theory that the lattice sets up conditions to promote quadruple fusion of deuterium to form Be-8 would result in the immediate fission of Be-8 to form two He-4 nuclei at 25 MeV each; these would then transfer their energy to the environment through ordinary absorption. Now, I've been reading that these nuclei would be expected to produce X-rays as they are slowed by the milieu, and it seems the X-rays are missing. (X-rays are reported, but, again, at low levels). It's quite a theoretical puzzle; but the absence of theory is no argument against experimental results. It merely increases their ultimate significance of confirmed, at the same time as it tends to depress efforts to confirm. (If a result is considered to violate accepted theory, then it can be considered probably that there was some artifact; this early skepticism was very appropriate. However, when there are confirmations, that kind of skepticism gets quite shaky.)

The biggest problem facing CF research early on was probably the fragility of the effect. Looking only at excess heat, first, it was only found in a certain percentage of cells. That looked really suspicious. However, the experiment was far more complex and difficult to replicate than the original publicity implied. "Negative replications" were merely examples of samples that didn't show the effect, and those experiments did not reproduce the actual experimental conditions. It was many more years before forms of CF experiments were found that were reliable, that didn't need more than following clear instructions. But there was a class of experiment that got around this problem, and I've tried to assert it in the article, being opposed by your edits. That's the "association" of Helium with excess heat. The article presently says, in the "association section," your version, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat.

That is not a description of an association, that was taken from the McKubre et al paper in a part that was about something else. To make that statement an association, an extremely strong one (making it up), it would become, in a run of 16 cells, where five produced excess heat, helium was detected in blind testing in all five cells showing excess heat, and, following the same procedures, not in any of the "dead" cells. That's a very strong piece of evidence that excess heat is connected causally with helium. The statement as it exists in the version you supported far, far weaker, and shows no association at all.

(The report seems to have been written by someone who did not understand the McKubre report.... The strong evidence in McKubre's paper was glossed over, and this weak finding (in appearance) was reported instead.)

From the McKubre paper:

The first and historically most important experiments were performed by Miles et al., to correlate the helium content of gas produced by electrolysis (D2 or H2, and O2) with the average heat excess during the interval of sampling. Because of the very low 4He concentration expected and observed (1- 10 ppb) extensive precautions were taken to ensure that samples were not substantially contaminated from the large ambient background (5.22 ppm). In an initial series of experiments, later replicated several times,55,69 eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat production in two identical cells showed the presence of 4He whereas six control samples gave no evidence for 4He.

This is an association, and is substantially stronger. That was a very early experiment (I think it was 1989). Much more work was done later. Storms reports what I put in the article in this section, it is a much more comprehensive review of the literature on the topic. I gave the estimation of Miles that the (later, similar kind of) results were due to random association: 1 in 750,000. But what's even more important is the energy relationship established by comparing the energy generated per helium atom found: that's the 25 +/- 5 MeV value that would, indeed, result from d+d -> fusion. Some very careful research has supported this. When the excess heat goes up, the helium goes up, and vice versa.

If we are going to have a section on the association of excess heat and helium, we should show the claimed association of excess heat and helium, not a non-associated figure reported by some nameless bureaucrat who crafted the DoE report (that report is notable, in itself, but it wasn't "peer-reviewed." nor even subject to ordinary publication restrictions! Thanks for your consideration. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I told Hipocrite about putting only the explanations that appear on the DOE 2004 final report, and the transfer of heat to lattice appears there (although we shouldn't it to Storms, for reasons outlined at Talk:Cold_fusion#How_much_weight_for_Storms_book.3F and Talk:Cold_fusion#Removal_of_Storms_material.). The Mossbauer effect was already rejected as an explanation in the DOE 1989, page 24 or so, in one sentence, and in Goodstein.

The problem with the DOE 2004 report is it says that the reviewers are evenly split in the evidence, but then it says that "Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling" not that they found all the evidence compelling just the one meeting those conditions, and then it cites all the reasons given by the non-convinced reviewers, and then it says "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.". They found a lot of problems with the evidence, and they only found it compelling under certain conditions. The final paragraph of that section cites two-thirds unconvinced that the evidence showed low energy nuclear reactions, one reviewer convinced and the rest somewhat convinced. So simply saying that they were convinced, divided or that they found the evidence compelling, is an oversimplification and it misleads the reader. (also, as for what "most scientists" or "the scientific community" thinks, I already presented RS on both the article and the talk page here and also here).

I knew already that you don't agree with the assesmente made by the reviewers, but we are supposed to write the articles by what the RS say, and according to their weight, and that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought", and you know that DOE 2004 had and still has tremendous weight in the how the field was is still viewed by mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 10 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)

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 • 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:46, 11 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:49, 19 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)