User talk:EdChem/Archive 1

Hi EdChem
Now we're getting friendly, as we all are in WP:Chem, please call me Wim. And I do agree with your feedback on the WT:Chem page about layout of chemical reactions (apart from the centering).  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Wim - and by all means, feel free to shorten me to 'Ed'. I'm sure working together we WP:Chem-ers can continue to improve Wikipedia.  As for the formatting, the world would be a boring place if we all held the same views! EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the support on the lead(II) nitrate. Now some more people to put in the Support word to make sure.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * No problem - I'm happy to support now that I am comfortable with the content. By the way, I added the enthalpy of formation value, but am not sure how to put in the reference.  Would you please add them in, so I can have a look at what the formatting should be?  The details are: Aylward, G. H. & Findlay, T. J. V. (2008). SI Chemical Data (6th edition). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia. ISBN 0-470-81638-4. EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You would put a ref, using the cite book template just after the last period. This would show up as follows:

Ununoctium FAC
I have gone through your comments and made some suggestions. If you have time, you are welcome to take a quick look at the article again. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nergaal, I did notice that you had gone through my comments, but I didn't reply as I didn't really have more to add. When I first commented, I had two issues - content, and whether it was suitable to be an FA given the narrowness of the topic.  So, I commented on the content issues, and didn't vote to Support or Oppose because I think I'm too new to be sure about my FA concern.  I was going to add a comment to this effect, but found that a decision had been made to promote.  I am pleased for you that it was granted FA status (congratulations!) and will bear this example in mind in future cases.  Cheers. EdChem (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Subpages
Hi there. To create a subpage, just go to your user pages and type "/Name" in the URL after the "User:EdChem" bit, where "Name" is the name of the page, and hit return. Or just create a link. eg. User:EdChem/Drafts and click on that link to start editing it. Save, and the page will be created for you. Simple! :-) To keep track of your userpages, use Special:Prefixindex, and select "User" and type in your name. For other special pages, see Special:Specialpages. For what is acceptable in userspace, see WP:USER (that guideline is a bit long, but probably worth reading anyway - should mostly be common sense). Any questions, please ask here, or other users, or read the WP:HELP pages, or ask at WP:HELPDESK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Saw your comment and replied. I'll see how it looks in a week, but it's probably to my benefit to have the suggestion out there. Adam Cuerden talk 00:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman ArbCom comment
Hi there. I saw your long comment at the ArbCom case. You make some excellent points (some of which had been made, but doubtless got lost in the noise) and some new points as well. I agree very strongly with the point that admins can feel unable to act in cases of bad blocks, and I have some more to say as well, but there is a lot to respond to there! Just wanted to thank you for saying all that (and it was a rewrite as well!). Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Carcharoth, I'm glad someone has read it, and I hope the ArbCom members think about it as the situation looks really bad to a newcomer. I'm not surprised that admins feel can feel powerless in bad block cases, and whilst I suspect one motivation for this case was to try to address this, the present finding really just encourages admins to stay away from reviewing actions.  I know I repeated some points made before - primarily those I thought were important and seemed to not be considered in the decision - but I thought a single comprehensive view might be seen as more helpful (and FYI, the rewrite was longer!).  I notice today that the category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review example I used has been closed with 'deletion endorsed' without addressing any of the policy issues.  My confidence in this place is dropping, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, I just came across your comments on how some good may come from the case regarding documentation of sock puppetry cased. Just FYI, I commented on it (positively and in passing) in my first draft, but foget the second time.  I agree that this a possible positive outcome, and is also something that the Committee could note in obiter dictum comments. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, Thanks for answering my question (below) I'm not sure I got around to acknowledging that. I do appreciate it.


 * I saved your comment from the Matthew Hoffman case some time ago and just got around to reading it today. I'm glad to see new people taking such an interest, even though my experience like yours has been that it's not always appreciated. Anyway I wanted to tell you that I enjoyed reading it and appreciate the time you took to think about it and write about it.  That was an interesting and rather sobering case for new people to come across right away.  I was especially interested in your comment early on about encountering people who have learned to game the system; I've sure found that as well. Regards, Woonpton (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Woonpton. I was (and remain) happy to help, but it's always nice to have one's efforts acknowledged.  I am also pleased to hear that someone read my comments on the MH case, because I don't get any sense that it made any impact on the ArbCom members.  If you're watching ArbCom, have a look at the mess that is the Mantanmoreland case - there's nearly half of meg of criticism of the proposed decision, which appears to have little chance of leading to any change in the direction of the decision - so I'm bit sure they've learned much from the MH experience.  As for gaming the system, I know you are aware of RA's expert withdrawal comments, so you know that there are a fairly large number of science- and academic-types who are concerned - but not much is happening.  The fact that so many gamers together led to the loss of a fantastic science-minded editor is a major tragedy.  The constant reports on ScienceApologist to WP:AE also show the gamers are still active and gnawiing away at neutrality.  I really have my doubts about this place, which is really disappointing... Best, EdChem (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, I share your doubts and concerns, as you know. I can't urge any rational person to stay with the project, because the atmosphere is so toxic and crazy-making and more and more sympathetic to fringe views, but of course the encyclopedia will become even more of a laughingstock in the real world if it can't attract editors who are capable of thinking critically and evaluating ideas on their merits, and if the project as a whole doesn't value those skills.  Especially on the controversial articles where anti-rational forces are   toiling ceaselessly and won't give up til they exhaust the opposition and get their way, there is little incentive for reasonable people to waste their energy trying to make a difference.  As someone said on one of those discussions, it's like plowing the sea.  What I don't understand is, do these people really want the result they seem to be advocating for,  a return to the Dark Ages?  Why would anyone want that?   Well, enough useless pondering.    I'm sticking around only long enough to see if someone really does open a general RfC that addresses the central underlying division and if that comes to anything, but I have little hope for either.  Take care, I wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Username?
Hi Ed, I'm writing you because you were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia and said I should feel free to ask you questions, and I can't find the answer to this at Questions or FAQ. Why is my username in red? I thought at first it must be that I'm new (silly me, I had this idea that there was a policy to be friendly to newcomers and that the red tag would alert everyone to be friendly to me, maybe?) but (1) people haven't been particularly friendly to me (they haven't been unfriendly, they've just acted as though I don't exist) and (2) today I ran across someone who just joined a few days ago and his username isn't red. So now I'm feeling very puzzled, and even a bit paranoid. Can you tell me why my username is red? Thanks (I don't know how to watch for a reply here, and don't want to keep checking back, so would you mind replying at my talk page, if you know the answer? ThanksWoonpton (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just had an idea, just after I sent you the above. I decided that the reason that my username is red might be that I haven't set up a user page.Woonpton (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response from Woonpton's talk pge: Hi, Woonpton, I saw your message on my talk page. You are correct about your user name being red because you have not started a user page. In fact, any red link on WP means that the page being linked to does not exist - either because it has never been created, or because it has since been deleted. Your idea of a red link to indicate a newbie user is interesting, but would be a double-edged sword. Since there are a lot of new users who are sock puppets or interested only in vandalism or are trolling, they can be met with some suspicion. I note that you have a talk page post from ScienceApologist about ArbCom proceedings, from which I am guessing you have dived into some of the more controversial areas. I have done the same, so I can understand your decision, but this also means that there may be a little more suspicion of you as a newbie from some quarters. It isn't fair, but then, what is?

Regarding watching pages, at the top of each page there are tabs for discussion (the talk page), + (add new section), history, etc. Pressing the 'watch' tab will add that page and its associated talk page (or the associated article or user or whatever page if you are on a talk pgae) to your watchlist. Your links in the top right "Woonpton my talk ..." include a link to your watchlist, where you will see a link to the most recent edit of all pages you are watching, including who made the edit, when, and what the edit summary says. This is not only useful for watching for replies to questions, but also for changes to pages you are editing or find interesting. From the 'my watchlist' link, you can also edit your watchlist, and you can remove pages from your watchlist either there or by clicking the 'unwatch' tab on a watched page.

Another thought on red links - they can also be useful if you want to create sub pages. For example, if you wanted a sub page of your user page to work on a section of an article out of the public glare, you can simply add a link by posting a talk page message that says something like user:Woonpton/sandbox, which produces a red link: user:Woonpton/sandbox which you can click on to create the page. If you prefer to name it something relevant to the article, that's cool too. You can also request such pages be deleted when you no longer need them.

Regarding talk page organisation, there seem to be two distinct schools of thought. Some people prefer to respond on each other's talk pages, so that you get the orange 'new message' bar. Others prefer to keep interactions on a single page, so they are coherent. I fall into the latter group, but either way is fine. If asked to reply on another page (as you requested), I'll do so, but also tend to copy responses to my own page - that way you get the orange bar notification and I get the coherent discussion that I prefer. It's up to you what you prefer.

Finally, I know that it is easy to feel ignored. You might want to try joining a WikiProject in an area of interest, and contribute to it. Long standing editors on those projects tend to be happy to welcome and help us newbies, and can also provide someone to ask for help. Of course, you can also ask me if you like! If I don't know the answer, I'll try and point you in the direction of someone who can help. If I don't answer, I'm probably busy in real life, and so have yet to see your message. Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 163.1.209.10
Yes, that is mild but that is how Cluebot works - it starts afresh every month, I believe. Try reporting the editor on the grounds of 'vandalism only account' as my final warning has expired by now. Hadrian89 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back?
Hi Ed, long time. I've stuck around watching, ever since, but have stayed away from editing articles because of the difficulties we talked about then, which have worsened exponentially since then, and have generally commented in non-article space only when I felt I couldn't be silent and respect myself. Now seems to be one of those times.

I thought you and I shared an idea about the value of scientific findings and a scientific approach to knowledge; I thought we were equally committed to the idea that Wikipedia, by reflecting the consensus of reliable sources, should be a high-quality encyclopedia rather than a catalog of fringe theories. But what you are doing now is putting your whole weight behind the effort to make wikipedia a platform for the promotion of fringe ideas. Either I misjudged you in the beginning, or you're playing some sort of game I don't understand; those are the only two explanations I can come up with, and in our brief encounters before, you didn't strike me as a game-player. In fact, as I recall, you held those who game the system in disfavor, which makes it even more puzzling why you would champion the cause you seem to be championing. I just thought of a third possibility; if you have just come back and haven't watched what's gone on in the meantime, you may think you're coming back to the same encyclopedia that you left, which would be a completely wrong assumption. If it weren't for the Matthew Hoffman comment, I would have been sure that your long-dormant account had simply been hacked by Jed Rothwell or one of the other cold fusion promoters who have been banned from wikipedia for their POV and COI editing.

Abd is an apologist for those banned users, see here and here. While you're at it, I recommend you read the entire RfC and its talk (plan lots of time). But most of all, I dare you to read as much as you can stomach of the talk pages associated with Cold Fusion, and then tell me that banning JzG from those pages and allowing Abd to stay there is the best thing to do to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and decrease disruption for the editors working on that page.

I even want back through your contributions to see if you'd had a run-in with JzG somewhere that would have embittered you enough to make common cause with his enemies (who for the most part are also the enemies of a quality encyclopedia) but I didn't see anything like that. Everyone I respect seems to agree that the action was a right action, the only problem is that someone else should have done it. JzG has agreed that he won't take further administrative actions in Cold Fusion. To me, it seems a moot point; the desired effect has been achieved, unless your goal is really to get JzG desysopped on the basis of one action which he's already in effect agreed not to do again, which would be wholly inconsistent with your argument in the Matthew Hoffman case.

Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm just totally bewildered by this. Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Woonpton, long time indeed. To set your mind at (some) ease, I am the same editor as was before.  I can assure you that my views on the primacy of science have not changed.  I haven't followed anything much on WP again until recently, so you are correct that I may be a little out of date - and certainly I appreciate any comments or suggestions re catch-up... just please don't turn my stomach too much.  To be clear, I certainly am interested in what you have to say and am glad you have come to raise your concerns with me directly.


 * On the subject of the Matthew Hoffman case, my views have not changed in essence. If you doubt that, have a look at my input into the current motion regarding that case on the WP:RfAr page.  In fact, my concerns about ArbCom from that time proved to be correct.  I left soon after the debacle that was the Mantanmoreland case, and when I recently read about the OrangeMarlin fiasco I could only think that I was glad I hadn't seen it in real time.  The slate of new arbitrators, coupled with the resounding defeat of those who stood for reelection, have me hoping the institution has been renewed.  Actually, that is one reason for participating in the case - as an experiment to see whether there has been genuine change.


 * But what you are doing now is putting your whole weight behind the effort to make wikipedia a platform for the promotion of fringe ideas. Either I misjudged you in the beginning, or you're playing some sort of game I don't understand; those are the only two explanations I can come up with, and in our brief encounters before, you didn't strike me as a game-player. Fortunately, there is another explanation - one with which you may disagree, but which I hope you can accept.  I am certainly not a game-player, though of course you will need to judge that for yourself.  I am also not putting my whole weight behind anything (I can go at something muvh harder if I really focus), and don't want to see a fringe-focussed Wikipedia.  However, I see the case at hand as about behvaioural issues, and not editing / content.  To be honest, I have been in two minds about the whole situation, because to me both Abd and JzG are part of the problem.  My recollection is that Abd was one of the people supporting and advising Whig when he was trying to drive away a now-Vanished user.  I have been trying to put that (and the broader issue of civil POV pushing) to one side because they clearly aren't going to feature in the case.  I have also avoided reading the cold fusion page for fear that it would just make ignoring the content issues harder.


 * On JzG... I have had interactions with him that I don't wish to discuss, but suffice it to say that: (1) I think he is generally a good administrator; (2) I agree with him broadly on content issue; and (3) When he is wrong, he tends to be hugely wrong, to do a fair amount of consequential damage, and he is only persuaded back to reality with a really big stick. Admin recusal is not a small issue, as far as I am concerned, and the outcome I hope for from the case is JzG recognising that he needs to take recusal issues seriously.  Even with the misgivings I have from the past, I do not want to see him desysopped - but I do want him to understand that everyone is accountable.  Incidentally, taking recusal seriously will help him by avoiding future charges of acting while conflicted - but only if he doesn't try wearing both hats.  I certainly do not seek to have him banned from any area, and suspect cold fusion will be a better article with his involvement - but only as an ordinary editor.  In the present case, the problems around JzG are much more easily addressed, and I hope the case serves as a big wake-up call to all the administrators that recusal is a fundamental issue about competently using the tools.  Recusal is not merely a formality or a process issue to be ignored.


 * On Abd... His conversational style and obssessiveness (both ADHD-related) make his approach problematic. I agree with comments from Frtizpoll on this - it is really hard to know what to do assist any editor with those characteristics.  I remember the discussions from around a year ago about the treatment of experts, the problems of civil POV-pushing, and the burnout associated with relentless repetition of the same tired arguments.  From what I can gather, nothing has really changed on those fronts, and I certainly still have no solution that leaps to mind.  Since civil POV-pushing is not really in issue in the case as it is formulated, all I've done on that side is oppose principles and findings that advance such an agenda.  My opposition to the idea that involved means acting on anything that could be cast as an editorial issue, for example - see my comments around the Journal of the Royal Geological and Tiddlewinks Society of the People's Democratic Repulic of Western Togo, for instance.  I would hope you would concur with this perspective.  It may be that a topic ban is needed for Abd - I make no comment on that, beyond saying that it is beyond the scope of the present case, and so is another of the issues I have left to the side.


 * Certainly, if there are things I have said on the case pages or elsewhere that you see as advancing the fringe position then please point them out - because that is emphatically not my goal. If there is something I can add / read / link to / whatever that makes progress on the civil POV-pushing side, please point that out too.  My goal in the case is for the point about recusal to be emphatically made, to JzG in the first instance, and beyond that to the broader admin community.  If JzG recognised he should have recused earlier, this would perhaps be moot - but I am not yet convinced he does recognise that, which is really disappointing.  I would be in favour of something that improved Abd's handling of disputes and communications, but am having trouble seeing what can reasonably be done by ArbCom in this area.


 * Again, thanks for coming and asking me. I don't read your post as unduly harsh, but it does have the bluntness that happens with scientists.  Don't worry - I can cope with that.  :)  EdChem (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I was a little taken aback at the way I'd lit into you, and decided I'd better push back and cool off for a while before reading your response.


 * I'll need to think before responding in full, but for now I'll just respond to one phrase: "Since civil POV-pushing is not really in issue in the case as it is formulated..." by saying that civil POV-pushing is exactly what this case is about; this case is a perfect demonstration of civil POV-pushing at its most insidious and successful.   It's not in issue in the case as formulated, because Abd formulated the case and has maintained tight control over its scope, to the point that even though some of the arbitrators have made clear that (as is common practice in all arbitration cases) the behavior of ALL parties will be looked at, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that it's simply mind-numbing to read his stuff enough to figure out what he's talking about.


 * But how it looks to me, as an outsider, is that the whole purpose of bringing this case is to further the fringe agendas of Jed Rothwell (who Abd considers an expert in cold fusion, but who has no education in science and is, as another editor said, just a guy with a website) and Pierre Carbonn, (another guy whose sole purpose in life is to advocate for and promote the cause of and belief in free energy). I can understand that if you've been careful not to contaminate yourself with knowledge of the content issues, then you can't understand that this is all about content and about POV-pushing, but I also don't understand why content wouldn't be important to you. One thing I've learned in more than a year of watching Wikipedia is that all disputes, however they may present themselves, are essentially content disputes, and that when "uninvolved" administrators (I mean uninvolved in the sense of not understanding the underlying content disputes) take administrative action in controversial articles, their actions almost without exception favor the civil POV-pusher, I guess because they're always eagerly helpful and polite, while the guys trying to protect the article from fringe cruft are always burned out and irritable.  When the helpful and polite guys are rewarded and the tired cranky guys are punished, it has a real consequence for the content of the article:  the content is inevitably compromised.


 * I've never encountered JzG directly and I know he's made a lot of enemies, but I've always trusted his instincts about content and about what's good for the encyclopedia. The person I'm more familiar with who was a lot like JzG was Science Apologist. Another guy who helped immensely to keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic, but who had a rather blunt personal style, and who is now blocked from editing.  I don't see his banning as a net positive for the encyclopedia, not even close.  OrangeMarlin hasn't edited for months (I'm glad to see, at least, that you were horrified by that travesty of a case).   Raymond Arritt only comes around now and then under another name to drop a funny but apt comment where it's most needed, but doesn't use his administrative tools any more, and he was one of the few science-oriented administrators.  MastCell keeps getting fed up and leaving.  He always comes back, thank goodness, but someday maybe he'll just forget to come back.  He says no one is indispensable on Wikipedia, but I truly believe he is.  If he left for good, who would take his place?  I don't see anyone stepping up to take his place, or JzG's either, or Science Apologist's.   The people who have hounded these guys off know exactly what they're doing, and JzG is their next target. (And it didn't bother you at all today, that Abd was actually insinuating that MastCell might be next?)  One by one the people who are trying to ensure and maintain the quality of content are being picked off and the encyclopedia is  being handed to fringe advocates on a platter, and you're helping.


 * Well, with that I've come full circle, and I didn't mean to respond at such length right away, so I'd better stop. There's no way you could see it from my point of view without taking the trouble to understand how deeply this case is entangled with a content dispute, and how much it is intended as a way to further a fringe cause, and since you seem to think it's some sort of virtue to remain ignorant, we may as well disagree to agree.  In future, I won't assume that we are on the same "side" and it won't upset me any more to see you working for the destruction of the encyclopedia.  I won't say I wish you well in that endeavor, but I hope I've seen enough and won't stick around to see the final collapse, which is inevitable once Wikipedia gets the reputation in the real world of being nothing but a virtual Whole Earth catalog or something of the like.  In the meantime, by all means, you just make real sure that administrators trying to stem that tide are sanctioned for not properly understanding the concept of recusal. Woonpton (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Woonpton, I'm actually much more distressed and upset by your more recent post - not because of the style, I hasten to add, but because of the content. I certainly don't see myself as fighting for the fringe views or as subscribing to the anti-side in the Science Wars (see Sokal affair if you need detail).  As such, being seen as a potential enemy working for the destruction of the encyclopedia is really disheartening and makes me sad.  I was hoping we could agree to disagree on some of our differences.  The idea that the scientifically literate editors are unwilling to accept differences of opinion whilst maintaining mutual respect is disappointing - demands for uniformity are more characteristic of the political hard right, not the broad and liberal tent I generally consider the scientific community to be.  In the hopes that we can reach some reconciliation, I'd like to address some of your points.


 * [C]ivil POV-pushing is exactly what this case is about; this case is a perfect demonstration of civil POV-pushing at its most insidious and successful.  It's not in issue in the case as formulated, because Abd formulated the case and has maintained tight control over its scope, to the point that even though some of the arbitrators have made clear that (as is common practice in all arbitration cases) the behavior of ALL parties will be looked at, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that it's simply mind-numbing to read his stuff enough to figure out what he's talking about.  The initial case formulation was from Jehochman's request, so that's hard to blame on Abd.  As for Abd's maintaining control of the scope, substantial evidence of edit warring or other misconduct from Abd presented on the evidence page could change all that.  All the evidence on Abd basically boils down to his style - and as we both know, civil POV-pushing has confounded all attempts at control.  If there is good evidence of disruption, get someone to present it.  Nevertheless, ArbCom can only deal with the case before it, and the present case shows some issues around JzG that need to be addressed in some way, and a challenging problem around Abd's communication style.  Irrespective of anyone's purpose, that is the case as it presently exists.


 * I can understand that if you've been careful not to contaminate yourself with knowledge of the content issues, then you can't understand that this is all about content and about POV-pushing, but I also don't understand why content wouldn't be important to you. You also commented since you seem to think it's some sort of virtue to remain ignorant. That's unfair, Woonpton - what about some assumption of good faith?  Remember that ArbCom rarely concerns itself with content issues, and so making huge content arguments to them is a waste of time.  This 'content' dispute should never have got near ArbCom.  When it was disputed at ANI, the conflict of JzG should have been noted, and the listing decision re-evaluated on its merits.  If JzG was so sure he was correct, he could have easily asked for someone uninvolved to re-consider the listing on its merits, and no harm would have been done.  Instead, he maintained he was right.  Consequently, and with the usual closing of ranks happening, the actual issue never got resolved.  That was foolish - and it leaves JzG vulnerable as he is now.  ScienceApologist had the same problem - he wouldn't back off when he got himself into the wrong, and ultimately gave enough evidence to get him banned.  I really hope that JzG will learn from that mistake because otherwise he is going to leave in frustration or get forced out - and neither of those outcomes is good for the project in any way.


 * One thing I've learned in more than a year of watching Wikipedia is that all disputes, however they may present themselves, are essentially content disputes, and that when "uninvolved" administrators (I mean uninvolved in the sense of not understanding the underlying content disputes) take administrative action in controversial articles, their actions almost without exception favor the civil POV-pusher, I guess because they're always eagerly helpful and polite, while the guys trying to protect the article from fringe cruft are always burned out and irritable. When the helpful and polite guys are rewarded and the tired cranky guys are punished, it has a real consequence for the content of the article:  the content is inevitably compromised.  Yep - and that is why I have suggested the desirability of science-literate administrators not jumping in to editing but staying back to provide the admin support that is needed.  Sound hard to do?  Absolutely - but the present approaches have not been working, so maybe a new approach is needed.  We do agree on the dangers of the civil POV-pushers.  Really.


 * Further, on the subject of content, if the case were not basically about behaviour I would have looked into the content in more depth. My point about not looking into cold fusion the article was that it would likely upset me or enrage me and that's not productive for looking at the case nor for my health.  For what it's worth, I am sitting in bed as I type this.  I haven't been able to work at all this year, which is frustrating (to say the least).  My likely reaction to a full-on content war with drivel is just not a healthy idea for me at the moment - my doctors would freak out in a big way of I ended up in the state something like that might risk.  The content issue is not going to be solved in this case, so a better vehicle for raising the civil POV pushing problem is needed.  I have a couple of vague ideas, which I'd be willing to discuss, but they aren't ripe for this case.


 * I've never encountered JzG directly and I know he's made a lot of enemies, but I've always trusted his instincts about content and about what's good for the encyclopedia. As I said earlier, I generally agree - but when he does something dumb it tends to be really dumb.  In this case, when the start point was a recusal issue where he was in the wrong, continuing to defend was not smart - a strategic retreat would have been way smarter.  Even if he had said "ok, I think I was right, but to end this argument I have delisted from the spam list.  I will also nominate it for re-listing and for resolution by the community", he could have avoided this case.


 * I was really disappointed to discover the topic ban then block of ScienceApologist. Unfortunately, he was baited into shooting himself, just as JzG is at risk of doing.  I hope MastCell doesn't follow down that path.  The loss of Raymond Arritt was also a huge blow to the encyclopedia.  One by one the people who are trying to ensure and maintain the quality of content are being picked off and the encyclopedia is  being handed to fringe advocates on a platter, and you're helping.  Actually, I'm not - or at least, I really don't mean to be.  Unfortunately, the end point of the path littered with incivility is well known.  I would love for that not to be true, but it is.  SA's incivility was not really harmful (at least, most of the time) but he couldn't control it and so he ultimately hanged himself.  What I'm advocating is a sufficiently harshly worded sanction on JzG for him to actually get the message not to skip issues that are important.  I'd hate to see him lose his tools, and really hope he will act to prevent this happening.  You evidently disagree with my perspective - as is your right - but are my goals really working for the destruction of the encyclopedia?


 * So, Woonpton, how about it? Am I really as bad as you suggest?  By the way, have you read all my comments on the case workshop page from the last 12 hours or so?  I hope we can reconcile to a position of mutual respect, even if we have some disagreements.  Best, EdChem (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, thanks for responding, and sorry you're sick. You're right, I hadn't seen some of your posts on the RfAr; I'd only seen the one where you altered your statement to  conform to Abd's, striking the statement that desysopping isn't necessary and replacing it with "shouldn't be necessary" which I took as a subtle and backhanded way of telling me to buzz off.    Your posts in the section about content and POV pushing, which I found and read after reading your question, are certainly more promising as far as finding some common ground.
 * It wasn't - it was genuinely as I indicated on the case page, I thought the word choice was not ideal and then saw a suggestion with exactly the same alternative suggested, so I made the change. Poor judgement?  Maybe - lots of medication and forced inactivity seems to be having some effects in that area.  :(  EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry what I said made you feel bad. But you said yourself that you didn't want to confuse your clarity about the conduct issue by familiarizing yourself with the content issue; I'm honestly not sure how that's different from making a virtue of ignorance.
 * Since ArbCom won't touch content issues (for decisions), they are mostly a distraction except insofar as they illuminated conduct problems. And, I don't need to look at much content to know that I'll mostly agree with JzG and mostly disagree with Abd on content issues.  However, I have had a quick look in the last 24 hours - and you are right, there are content issues in need of resolution.  EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wrong about Abd filing the case, but have you really read Jehochman's statement? He asks for an examination of both JzG's and Abd's behavior, and it seems evident throughout his statement that he's at least as exasperated with Abd as with JzG.
 * * Were JzG's disputed administrative actions proper, or not?
 * * Has Abd engaged in dispute intensification and forum shopping?


 * "At present, the opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards."


 * It seems rather a leap from that tentative beginning to the strong stand you (and Abd) are taking, insisting unilaterally that JzG was wrong and must acknowledge that he was wrong.
 * OK - but the dispute intensification / forum shopping issue for Abd is a really hard one to make, because he is right that recusal was in issue, and the overturning of the blacklisting didn't happen until the case started. That puts anyone trying to make an argument on forum shopping in a very difficult position.  The case evidence page doesn't do a decent job of making a case for findings or sanctions in the area, which is why I wouldn't touch it.  The present issues are not at all suited to sanctioning Abd because the evidence strongly suggests that he needed to continue with WP:DR procedures to get key issues recognised.  However, that is not to say that Abd's behaviour is not in issue - and you've helped to convince me that there is more needed in this area.  EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, about AN/I; I didn't see any of that. I followed the case from Abd's RfC, where he didn't get the endorsement he wanted from the community,  directly to the RfAr, (which was filed within a day of the closing of the RfC) where he has dominated all the discussion, so it's maybe not surprising that I thought the RfAr was his too.  I apologize for my mistake.  However, it's interesting that Jehochman's statement of the case was obviously intended to address Abd's tendentiousness and, well, his longstanding vendetta (my word, not Jehochman's) against JzG as well as clear up what the policy should be about using the spam blacklist to deal with abuse of unreliable sources, but it's been turned entirely into a case about JzG.  The problem with POV-pushing is that the only way to see POV pushing is to look at pages and pages of wikilawyering (which Abd is a master at; that was one reason I was so surprised you were championing his cause) and twisting and turning tendentious arguments.  It's almost impossible to demonstrate tendentious editing (and I'm not talking about his style, I mean the POV he is relentlessly pushing) with diffs.
 * On AN/I, I don't remember the details - but circling the wagons around a poor decision is pretty common, IMO, and I've seen it around JzG before. If you look at his own words following his second RfC and the findings relating to him in the omnibus case from last September, you can see a long history of trying to get him to modify his ways.  He knew he was under scrutiny and he should have known the acceptable standards - your comment below about worst enemy is bang on target.  If someone could build a decent case that Abd has a vendetta then the case will change directions - but again, I suspect that would be nigh on impossible.  As for your comment that the problem with POV-pushing is that the only way to see POV pushing is to look at pages and pages of wikilawyering, I'd ask: does the workshop page of the case page look like POV-pushing to you?  EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are all these "science-literate administrators"? There are 1600 administrators, and I only know of 3 or 4 who are science literate and are willing to take administrative action against fringe advocates, and those are burned out.  Show me some more, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
 * Point. :( Want me to nom you for RfA? :)  EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's keep talking? The question at the end of your post seems not the right question to me.  I don't think you're "bad," I just think you don't understand that by supporting Abd's campaign, you're supporting a fringe cause. And yes, I did read your recent comment on the Matthew Hoffman case, that's what I meant when I said if I hadn't seen that, I would have assumed your account had been hacked by cold fusion SPAs.  Oh, another concession; I do agree that Science Apologist and JzG have been their own worst enemies.  But as far as I can see, they're all we've got, I mean they were/are almost the only people who have been  willing to stand up to the fringe pushers and say no, that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But no, I don't see MastCell following that path at all; MastCell is the most levelheaded, civil, eventempered, diplomatic, science-oriented editor/administrator on the project; I've been watching him for a year and have never seen him lose his temper, and he's had plenty of provocation.  Regards, Woonpton (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, I'm quite willing to keep talking. I'm glad to hear that MastCell is unlikely to follow in JzG's and SA's footsteps, and I still hope that JzG can be helped to adopt a different approach.  I recognise you don't agree, but I really believe that getting JzG to take recusal seriously is actually good for the encyclopedia, long term.  As I said, you have made me reconsider in some areas, so I hope you don't feel your time has been wasted.  Best, EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break
Yeah, nom me for RfA, that would be brilliant (sarcasm). If I won't even edit the encyclopedia because I don't care to deal with fringe promoters, even to working on an article with them (three weeks on "What the Bleep Do We Know" was entirely enough to convince me never to waste time on such an enterprise again) why would I want to be an administrator? At any rate, even if I had enough edits and wanted to try it, the RfA wouldn't have a chance, since I suspect I've been identified as part of the "science cabal" whatever the hell that is, since I participated on Raymond Arritt's discussion about what to do about science editors burning out last year, and my comments about fringe advocates would be used to scuttle the attempt. Beside, I have absolutely no patience with stupidity. Ignorance I can deal with; it's just a lack of knowledge, but stupidity is willful, and there's way too much of it on this project, and it makes steam come out of my ears; I would be swearing in my edit summaries in no time at all.

I think you may not quite understand my position on JzG needing to acknowledge the need for recusal where he's involved. Since anyone who comes in to do the deed is going to be painted with the same brush (see Abd's innuendoes about MastCell today for an example of that), I'm not convinced that recusal is really the important issue. Everyone agreed that block was a no-brainer, but JzG was afraid he would be vilified if he did it himself, so MastCell did it, and now all of a sudden MastCell is being painted as involved because he responded to JzG's request for an independent administrator to make the decision? In other words, if JzG doesn't recuse himself, then he needs to be hounded and punished, but if he does recuse himself, then the person who steps in to make the decision and takes action opens themselves to contumely? I think that shows right there that it's not recusal that Abd is after, really; what he wants is for the action to be overturned, no matter who did it; as I've been trying to say for two days now, his goal is the advance of a fringe agenda. The recusal issue is a red herring. Focusing on recusal is just a handy way of getting the action overturned. He wants Jed Rothwell (and/or his many socks) to be unblocked and to be allowed to continue running rampant over the cold fusion article. To me, yes, administrator recusal is probably a good thing in principle, but it's not an overriding principle, certainly not nearly as important as preserving the integrity of content. To me it's like following the proper protocol for taking down the flag that flies in front of a school building. Yes, it's important to do that right, but if the school building is burning and the kids are still inside, how much sense does it make to take care of the flag first? That's where I am on that.

I agree with you in part (not entirely) on the analysis of evidence and am thinking about how to phrase what I want to say about that. Woonpton (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * RfA nom - no problem. I'll see if I can get Abd to co-nom, and maybe Matthew Hoffman!  I know the RfA process was badly flawed when last I saw it, and don't anticipate that it would have improved.  I wonder (perhaps overly idealistically) whether part of the problem is that desysopping is so difficult.  ArbCom is required to establish a process for recall of Arbitrators - proposals are due this month - and I hope that might serve as a template for an administrator recall process.


 * As for Abd, I do take your point - his agenda and mine are different, and I can see how you can feel I am being used by the enemy, so to speak. Administrator recusal is necessary once an admin becomes involved in an editorial sense, and my feeling is that JzG's mistake was to cross that line.  I think things would be much improved if an administrator would participate but stay out of editorial issues, so that behavioural issues are addressed.  Suppose JzG had never edited but had been able to rein in and warn when editors were bordering on warring, gaming the system against consensus, tendentious editing, etc.  As far as I can see, he would never have needed to become involved in the sense intended by policy, and the behavioural issues that are being used to frustrate appropriate content development would be addressed.  It has been argued that administrators with content knowledge should participate in editing, and rely on uninvolved administrators to act when assistance is requested.  As far as I can see, that approach was failing when I left, and it is still failing.  A new approach is needed.  However, this would only work so long as the definition of involved isn't distorted in the way Abd is advocating.  That is why I have argued strongly against his interpretations (you may have seen MastCell's comment on one of my arguments).


 * I look forward to your further thoughts. :)  Best, EdChem (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, I've been thinking hard about how to summarize how Wikipedia has changed in a year, and also considering a brief essay on the topic of involvement/uninvolvement of administrators and how it affects content quality. ArbCom is continually trying to refine what constitutes best practice, but decisions keep having unintended consequences.  At any rate you won't be getting either of those essays tonight, but just wanted in the meantime to say I hope you've noticed NewYorkBrad's findings of fact.Woonpton (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology and retreat
Obviously I feel very strongly about the direction Wikipedia is going, but I was out of line in questioning your edits and trying to warn you about a situation where I thought you were being used to further a cause that you wouldn't necessarily agree with if you saw the whole picture. But it wasn't my place to try to draw you the picture, and after a good sleep I can see how annoying/upsetting/startling that would have to be to the recipient, and how unproductive. And of course as a scientist, I have to accept that I could be totally wrong about all of it, although I'd be surprised; my comments are based in a careful observation of Wikipedia for 17 months. You're a smart guy; if it's as I say, you'll figure it out yourself in time, and I should leave you alone to do that. Maybe you'll even figure out a way to fix it. Good luck with that.

One clarification before I go: When I said that all disputes are at bottom content disputes, I didn't necessarily mean that arbcomm should rule on content disputes. Whether they should or not, or whether there should be a separate ruling body that rules on content disputes, is a separate question; at any rate arbcomm's current mandate excludes ruling on content disputes, and I'm not saying here that they should. In fact, I'm sure they shouldn't, because most of them don't know enough about content to make a good decision on content. What I mean is that almost all disputes arise from content disputes, and that cases filed at ArbComm these days are very often filed as a way to advance a content position, even though they seem on the surface to be about conduct. And when ArbComm rules on such cases, they're often furthering a content position without knowing that's what they're doing. At any rate, the problem of dealing with civil POV-pushers is that the problem is more a content problem than a conduct problem; it's very hard to make a case that someone is violating content policy by pushing a POV that isn't supported by the consensus of reliable sources; that argument can be wikilawyered out of existence in no time. There are administrators who claim, in response to such complaints, that all one has to do is show them a violation of content policy and they'll deal with it on the spot, but I've never seen that claim honored.

You are of course free to blank that whole section if you like, and I rather wish you would. I apologize again for barging into your talk page and questioning your actions. There was no call for it; I was wholly in the wrong. All the best, Woonpton (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, as I said about your first post, I would very much rather someone raised an issue with me than quietly form a view and walk away. I am a scientist, and consequently am willing to adjust a position based on new information.  You have no reason to regret sharing your views with me - certainly I have considered them as I would the views of anyone willing to engage in a reasoned and civil (and I mean civil in a sensible way, not an overly distorted wiki-way) discussion or debate.  My upset above was relating to feeling like I was being kicked off the island and told I belong in the anti-science tribe on the next island over.  As far as being used to advance the agenda of others, I freely concede that is possible.  In fact, Abd has definitely used at least one comment of mine for unintended purposes.


 * It's very hard to make a case that someone is violating content policy by pushing a POV that isn't supported by the consensus of reliable sources; that argument can be wikilawyered out of existence in no time. To me, this is why civil POV pushing is a conduct problem.  As far as the conduct of Abd goes, I am seriously considering what to say next on the case pages.  You have helped to convince me that there is a conduct problem here that is arguable with ArbCom.


 * As for your apology, thank you - but an apology for barging in (as you put it) isn't necessary. I have no problem with questions - they are vastly preferable to accusations or snap judgements (not saying you did either of those, just observing).  Actually, probably the part of your post that pleases me most is the sense I get that some mutual respect is being restored and reconciliation is taking place.  Best, EdChem (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So...since you don't mind questions, I'll ask another one: Happy now? Woonpton (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not happy. Haven't been happy in a long time.  If you are wondering why I didn't add any evidence after suggesting I might, I judged there was no chance that anything would change.  I do intend to do some editing of cold fusion, but it depends on factors beyond my control.  I expect to be hospitalised shortly, so you'll understand (I hope) that I have more urgent priorities.  If you want to be more explicit in identifying some specific fallout from the recent ArbCome case, be my guest - I haven't been around much in the recent past.  EdChem (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, I've just written you the longest thing and then lost it somehow. Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you, sorry you're ill, and I had so many other things to say, but they're lost in cyberspace now and I can't recreate them now as I need to do some yard work while it's cool.  I'll write more later.  It was such a good post, but when I previewed it, it showed my IP instead of my username; the thing had logged me out, and when I logged in, then what I'd edited was gone; I can't retrieve it. Rest easy, and take care of yourself. Woonpton (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (here's the long post I thought I had lost): Ed, I'm glad to hear from you, but I'm so sorry you're not well. You mentioned having a health problem before, but I didn't realize how serious it was.  If I added any stress or grief onto a real world misery/unhappiness by sharing my unhappiness about Wikipedia, which is after all "only a website," as people keep saying, then I am most sorry indeed.  I hope it's something that is amenable to rest and treatment. That last taunt of mine seems inexcusable under the circumstances. The worst of it is, I don't even remember the exact constellation of Wiki-events that prompted it.  I know I was unhappy with how cold fusion was going, and with how the Macedonia2 and Scientology Arbcoms were going, and in my vague memory it seems as if there were other things at the same time that made me feel that the battle was over and the wrong side had won.


 * Note that the remaining remarks were reverted by Woonpton following this post from Abd. With the content of my user talk page being at my discretion, rather than Abd's, I believe common courtesy requires that Abd at least advise me about such a request.  Since the comments were available in the history and there are no oversight issues, I believe a reasonable compromise that respects Woonpton's right to revert and my control of this page is to leave a link to make the comments more readily accessible.  EdChem (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your reply on my talk. With that, we do have common ground, but it also seems rather at odds with what you were saying before, that fringe science is all about "extreme factions" needing to learn to compromise. I can't quite reconcile the two, but I like that one better, and I'll accept that I must have been misreading you before (?) although as I say, it seems like two different pilosophies of editing; I don't quite see how you could hold both. Either science articles need to reflect reliable sources, or science editors need to compromise RS and NPOV in order to be more accommodating, even to the point of giving undue weight to fringe theories. Pick one or the other; you can't have it both ways. I've got my planting done so I'm at peace with the world; peace to you as well. I hope you have a good day. Woonpton (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * G'Day Woonpton, and thanks for your concern about my health. There's no need for you to feel guilty in that you could not have known the severity of my situation.  I haven't followed the Scientology or Macedonia ArbCom's - all I know is:
 * that IP editing from CoS-controlled IPs is out and those IP addresses are blocked
 * editors can use those addresses from an account declared to ArbCom
 * there seems to be a lot of complaints about sanctions for editors who didn't do much wrong, or who haven't edited in the area in ages
 * on Macedonia, there was a lot of noise and heat around the evidence that one side seemed to be near-uniformly Greek editors
 * On the Scientology case, assuming the evidence supports a finding of deliberate pro-Scientology POV-pushing, the IP blocks appear to be an effective (though potentially harsh) approach. The complaints of unwarranted sanctions and collateral damage are par for the course in ArbCom proceedings.  Some might suggest that sour grapes are inevitable.  Others might note the tendency of ArbCom to have trouble deciding when to use a fly-swatter v. an ICBM... and the unfortunate fact that sometimes the ICBM is aimed at the wrong country.  I wouldn't be surprised if the complaints of unwarranted sanctions were justified - one need only look to Matthew Hoffman to see how wrong a case can get, and that's without remembering the OrangeMarlin fiasco.  Perhaps you could enlighten me further on what went wrong (as you see it) with the above-mentioned cases?


 * As for Abd and cold fusion, I haven't looked since the case. By the sounds of it, a good thing for my blood pressure.  I do intend to go and undo one series of edits that seriously misrepresent the science, IMO, and to post on the talk page why I have done so - I just need to be up to writing the justification.  FWIW, I remember the battle when pro-homeopathy editors tried to add references to homeopathic preparations to the articles for a bunch of chemicals.  Potassium dichromate was one, I recall, and I remember thinking it was fortunate for the homeopaths that they were diluting it sufficiently to be absent from most doses - otherwise handing out carcinogens as remedies is asking for legal liability issues.  SA was totally correct in arguing about one-way linking in cases like that.  Actually, homeopathy and cold fusion have a lot in common when they begin to require complete revision of basic science to justify the underlying "explanation".  I can't recall WP:PRX - sounds like something to glance at when I feel up to it.


 * Regarding my comment at your talk and we do have common ground, but it also seems rather at odds with what you were saying before, that fringe science is all about "extreme factions" needing to learn to compromise: I think you have missed my view - and I have taken it too much as read - that there are editors on the fringe side with such an agenda that any policy-compliant and encyclopedia-building compromise is impossible.  The die-hard pro- warriors need to be banned - I can see no other way to control them.  And, to be clear, science articles need to be scientifically-based and justified by the available evidence.  Fringe science articles present a larger problem when the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies interfere with indicating why something is scientific bilge.  Some proposed "explanations" for pseudoscientific drivel are so obviously ridiculous to anyone with appropriate scientific training that few will ever take the time to write WP:RS explanations that are effectively WP:SYNTH explanations of the flaws.  Having said all of that, proponents of fringe views do have a useful role in collaboratively producing policy-compliant encyclopedic content.


 * I was interested to see your comments on the similarities in the cases of WP battles over some international disputes and science ones. I readily admit to the difference that there is a "right" position in science that is not necessarily the case with other disputes.  However, the editing behaviours show the same problems... intractable editors on one or both sides that hinder anything getting done who need to be removed, and reasonable editors who can collaborate to policy-compliant neutral content.  Part of the problem with the science articles is that the fringe warriors have waged such an effective campaign that they have induced a siege mentality in some science types - and that mentality means that even reasonable suggestions and policy-compliant compromises to produce a neutral response can be rejected out of hand.  One simple example, that book Abd was going on about and put in a long section describing all these possible explanations for a nuclear phenomenon.  Sciency editors were arguing (or wiki-lawyering, in some cases) for its complete exclusion despite its obvious relevance.  However, no one I saw suggested the one or two sentence inclusion that would have been NPOV.  Now, it could be suggested that such an inclusion would have been rejected by Abd or others - and perhaps it would have - but the mentality and the posting was not about what coverage was appropriate, it was about defeating the opposition.


 * Maybe this makes it clearer that we are discussing two sides of the same coin... you say (I believe) that the disputes are over content because the fringe editors will accept nothing less than uncritical fringe content, and that that content goal drives their behaviour. For an editor with an agenda like that, I think we agree that they need to be banned from the area.  However, and especially given the policy structure of WP, I suggest that the problem is the behaviour that prevents policy-compliant editing and compromise to occur.  I don't care if another editor believes in what I see as scientific drivel, so long as she or he is willing to edit in compliance with policy and the goal of high quality encyclopedic content.  To that extent, I don't see fringe beliefs as a problem in and of themselves, unless they produce behaviour that frustrates the goal being pursued.  Hopefully this makes things clearer for you.


 * A final word in this post on Abd... if his behaviour at cold fusion or elsewhere is demonstrably obstructing policy-compliant content development, and is demonstrably inconsistent with ArbCom findings, then the approach is simple:
 * Raise issue on talk page (two editors minimum)
 * Hold conduct RfC
 * Back to ArbCom
 * The content post I intend to make at cold fusion will help, I suggest. One of the reasons I backed off from the Abd/JzG case was concerns that grew and grew over Abd's behaviour.  In particular, his posts that sought to redefine policy on what constitutes consensus and on what constitutes undue weight.  I have to go now... it's a shame we can't talk in real time.  :(  Best, EdChem (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, see, I don't edit those articles because I don't care to deal with those people; I just sit by and wring my hands about it. Just wanted to let you know, in case you missed something, that I reverted some of my post because I got a complaint from Abd about it, so thought I would remove it from public view, at least. Hope that's okay with you. More later, Woonpton (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is ok for you to act on such a request, but I don't think it is ok for Abd not to have made me aware of his concerns. I have inserted a link to the relevant diff, and will also add one to Abd's request, should I find it.  I look forward to hearing more from you.  Best, EdChem (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Abd, he didn't actually request that I revert my message here (as you probably gathered from the message that you found; sorry, I should have linked it for you) but he obviously didn't like what I wrote, and since I was preparing detailed substantiation of what I said, I decided it made more sense to revert my unsubstantiated statements here and let the evidence speak for itself when posted in a day or so. I worked for two solid days (missing some beautiful weather) to prepare a very closely detailed substantiation, with dozens of diffs to back up everything I said, and was planning to post it on MastCell's talk page, but just as I was polishing it up, my browser dumped it into cyberspace without a trace.  I've never seen anything quite like it.  I couldn't get to it by back button, it wasn't listed in the "recently closed tabs" menu, although the browser had very obviously closed the tab; it wasn't listed in the history of the browser, it was just gone entirely. I'm not going to start over and do all that work again; it's not worth it. And it's a good thing for MastCell and his TPSs that I didn't load all that on there.  Not just the evidence itself but the  wikilawyering and hairsplitting verbiage that would inevitably follow it, would just swamp that talk page, with little to be gained for it. I gave Abd a word to the wise on my talk page about letting sleeping dogs lie; I hope he heeds it.


 * I haven't been following cold fusion closely the last few days, but I did see that the page has been protected and that you posted something in the talk. I hope you had time and energy to read through the discussion for the last couple weeks; I think you'd find it quite instructive. I sent you an email, no information just a confirmation to see if you have email enabled. If it weren't enabled, would I get a message immediately when I clicked on "email this user" saying the email wasn't enabled? I haven't used email much at all, in fact I had to re-register the free mail account I use for Wikipedia before I emailed you, because it had been inactive so long it had been closed. Woonpton (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Abd, he didn't actually request that I revert my message here (as you probably gathered from the message that you found; sorry, I should have linked it for you). Don't worry about it.  Also in the interests of fairness, I could have over-reacted - I was a bit narky that day.  Sad to hear that all the work went up in smoke - I had a submission to the MH ArbCom case do that, and re-wrote it only because I believed strongly that the proposed outcome was unfair.  If you can let it go past and move on and thereby avoid some hundreds of kilobytes of wiki-lawyering, good for you - moving on and leaving sleeping dogs lie is a very useful skill.


 * I haven't been following cold fusion closely the last few days, but I did see that the page has been protected and that you posted something in the talk. I hope you had time and energy to read through the discussion for the last couple weeks; I think you'd find it quite instructive.  I posted about reliability and conference proceedings more for the sake of other readers than for the participants in the discussion.  I have published numerous conference papers of lengths up to 5000 words with rigorous peer review, so I thought it important that it be remembered that reliability is a generally reasonable presumption for such publications.  I don't dispute that the circumstances of the particular case being discussed rebut that presumption and agree that the paper isn't reliable, but I wouldn't want it to appear that it is unreliable because it is a conference proceeding.  It is unreliable because the nature of the conference and the editorial board and speakers indicate that it did not conform to practices expected within the mainstream scientific community - and thus is not entitled to the usual credibility that comes when those practices are adopted.  I haven't yet posted on the content - the strength to do that has yet to eventuate, and what strength I had available I used to prepare a submission on the appeal of the MH ArbCom case.


 * I sent you an email, no information just a confirmation to see if you have email enabled. I'll look for it, though it won't be until much later today.  When last I checked, I had no email waiting in that account, but emailing certainly should be enabled.  My understanding is that you cannot access the page to send the message if the user has email disabled - you could try that with yourself, and see what happens.  As I recall, that was what happened when I tried to email you.  Best, EdChem (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did see your statement supporting Shoemaker's Holiday. I'm afraid I don't "get" any more what SH wants out of this.  I was very sympathetic during the Matthew Hoffman case and thereafter, but I was a little taken aback when I discovered that Shoemaker's Holiday was the same person (I personally think sequential accounts should be very openly acknowledged, maybe even in the signature for several weeks after the change) because I don't think people should get to come back after they've invoked their right to vanish.  To me, that's a one-time deal.  I don't think someone should be  blocked on discovery; I don't think that, but I do think people should be very sure they won't ever want to come back before they invoke the right to vanish. And if they do come back, they should be very open about who they are.   I did appreciate his edits as Shoemaker's Holiday, and was okay with his being there.  But I don't understand his repeated appeals to ArbCom and to the community about that case; it seems to me he's asking something that can't be granted and beating a dead horse.  Not that I disapprove of his activities, or of yours in supporting him; I just don't understand it any more.


 * We need a new section, this is way too long. I enabled my email yesterday and sent you some email. I agree with you about conference papers, to a point.Woonpton (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply about the MH appeal by email. You are right about length of section - feel free to start a new one.  I also tend to agree about right to vanish, in principle.  I'm curious as to where you see the line on conference papers.  EdChem (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have mail.Woonpton (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)