User talk:Abd/Archive1

P-Foster Talk " "Santorum is the cream rising to the top." " 23:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You still a Cold fusion crank?
I hope so. It's the only thing what makes you interesting. -- MtD Pinko Scum   11:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is my Talk page, so blah, blah, blah.
 * Blah, blah, blah.
 * Now, what were you asking?
 * Oh! Cold fusion. Dunno. I have a "business" that, in theory, is selling kits to replicate the published work of SPAWAR (U.S. Naval Reearch Laboratory at San Diego), finding very low, but clearly above noise, levels of energetic neutrons, estimated at about 14 MeV, from PdD codeposition on gold wire. Actually sold one and some stuff to go with it, to a high school student, who ran it. The solid state radiation detectors are under analysis. Which means, "lost somewhere in my apartment, will be found soon." His images weren't well focused, so I need to do my own microphotography to see what he got. Does that make me a crank?
 * There are lots of ways for nuclear reactions to show up missing in PdD experiments. After all, this is a reaction that doesn't occur in nature, or if it does, it's very rare. In the original failed replications, it's become quite clear, the researchers, mostly working with inadequate knowledge of the Pons-Fleischmann protocol, didn't take the necessary precautions, including many weeks of loading, to reach what was later found to be about 90% loading (D/Pd atom ratio), for the effect to show up. Mostly the trick of replicating the Pons-Fleischmann experiment was about using palladium that worked, and avoiding certain contaminants, and being quite patient. Most palladium doesn't work, but there are methods now of getting up to 100%. It has to do with nanostructure; normal palladium apparently has microcracks and other lattice defects that allow the deuterium to leak out, so the negative replicators didn't get about about 70%. It's a surface reaction, apparently, so there are also issues about surface treatment. This was far from a simple experiment, and one of the mistakes of Pons and Fleischmann was to allow it to appear so. They didn't announce, originally, that only 15% of their cells were showing excess heat.
 * In my own work, as an example of a possible failure to replicate, D2O readily takes up atmospheric hydrogen. I bought 99.9% D2O. 99% atom percent, if the 1% is hydrogen, won't work, that's been shown (not for these reactions.) So if my D2O has become contaminated, out of luck. I have no way of testing it. You do what you can do. I just saw that nobody was attempting replication of the neutron findings, so, hey, why not try? And selling kits was a way to convince myself that this might be self-supporting. I thought there's be some high school students interested in having fun with something unusual. I was right, but most of the interest has actually been from the university level, as grad student projects, which might still happen, there are professors interested. Meanwhile, I got to buy some cool stuff, and most of it can be sold. In fact, on paper, I've made money on platinum and gold.
 * However, while "unknown nuclear reaction" is still technically true, it is almost certainly fusion -- by an unknown mechanism -- that happens, when it happens, and the reason I say "fusion" is that helium has been confirmed to be generated, correlated with the anomalous heat. No heat, no helium, and this is a solid result. The early negative replications, actually, are a partial confirmation. They found no heat, but those that looked for helium also found no helium. Further, the ratio between the helium and the heat is consistent with the ratio expected from mass-energy conversion in deuterium -> helium. I'm now looking at unpublished work that nails this down with a measured value within about a percent of the theoretical value, not -- yet -- as to measured helium, but as to reaction site formation vs. heat, which implies that if a reaction site forms (Storms calls this Nuclear Active Environment -- and there are lots of proposals but no cigars yet), it proceeds to create fusion under conditions of high loading, 100%. That might be published later this year, and a well-known theoretical physicist is working on the physics of it. We'll see.
 * Helium was not originally expected to be a major product, d-d fusion only generates helium as a very rare branch, which is also accompanied by highly energetic gamma radiation, not seen. Basically, it's not "d-d fusion," almost certainly. But it is the conversion of deuterium to helium by an unknown process. "Unknown nuclear reaction" is what Pons and Fleischmann originally claimed. It was assumed, since these were deuterium experiments, that it must be fusion, or nothing at all, i.e., experimenter error or artifact.
 * So I write about this, on occasion, and I'm assertive, I write as if I know what I'm talking about. Does that make me a crank?
 * Probably.
 * And I'm working with the real researchers in the field, not garage/basement "free energy" enthusiasts, who can be heavy on enthusiasm but light on the critical analysis that is essential to science, the serious falsification efforts that are required before there can be much confidence in any theory.
 * However, you've hurt my feelings. Wah! Only cold fusion? That's about 1% of my current life. 10% today, because of your question, and some correspondence with a researcher.
 * I was highly skeptical of cold fusion, but I was a Wikipedia editor, interested in consensus process, which is, my view, the only reliable standard for neutrality, that, after thorough discussion among reasonable people -- or reasonably reasonable -- text that all can agree on is likely to be neutral. It's known how to facilitate consensus formation, but Wikipedia never did this. Instead, well, it's a mob scene, as I'm sure you know. Quite unreliable when there is real-world controversy.
 * So, my long-term expertise is in community process, and specifically how to scale this up. Consensus process, as known and practiced, works on a small scale, generally. You want "crank," I'm serious crank about this, if you get me going.
 * I've always investigated somewhat disreputable fields, and my approach is indeed skeptical, but not the kind of skepticism that assumes that I know what's true and what is not, except in very narrow areas. I.e., experience. I'm sitting at my computer, not laying in a hospital bed dreaming. And this and that has been published, in this or that journal. That kind of stuff. I draw a clear line between "what's so," by which I do mean true consensual reality that nobody who isn't seriously mentally broken will agree about, and our interpretations, the stories we tell about our experience, seeking meaning (as well as prediction, which is the survival value of this "story-telling.") This is very much the stuff of the Landmark Forum, so I've taken to Landmark like a duck to water, over the last year. Long story, as well.
 * When Rashad Khalifa published his "findings" ("creations" would be a better word) about letter frequencies in the Qur'an, which later was described as "The Miracle of the Nineteen," I accepted it *provisionally,* as one accepts a report from anyone. There is no way that I could, a priori, rule it out, and he said he'd found this and that, so I assumed he'd found what he said. Only when he was assassinated did I make serious efforts to verify what he'd claimed. And I found that it was a mistake, i.e., he had manipulated the data. I knew him, and don't think that this was deliberate, rather he thought of it as "finding the right way to count." But, of course, if you can keep varying the counting methods, you can make any result come out you want! (This was what I'd call a very low-level code.) In any case, I put in a few years on this topic, studying the claims of Khalifa and his followers. That's what Martin Gardner cited. Khalifa, in short, did not understand the scientific method.
 * When Khalifa originally announced his work, it was greeted with approval around the world (by Muslims who took it as confirming the perfect preservation of the Qur'an and its miraculous nature). Then, when he made certain heretical claims, people then rejected his claims about the 19. All of this was noise. Is the pattern there or not? I'm sure you've seen stuff like this in other fields, where people reject something because they think it supports something else. That's pseudoskepticism. Real skepticism is an equal opportunity reserver of final judgment. (For practical reasons, we don't require "final judgment" to make personal choices as to where we put our time. If we are going to decide on a death penalty, or spend a few billion dollars, perhaps!)
 * It's obvious to me, for example, that in cold fusion, "Bogus" became an accepted and firmly held story, maintained long beyond the point where solid experimental evidence had been accumulated, that sought and clearly preferred even preposterous explanations to dismiss the results. This is why the highly skeptical position on cold fusion has totally disappeared from the peer-reviewed literature, the only recent publication I know of was essentially a crank letter which one journal published in response to a review, probably because they knew that a good number of readers were thinking what the crank wrote. And when the authors then dismantled this, the crank complains, they didn't publish his follow-up letter. Tables have been turned. Mostly, though, recent reviews of the field are simply passing review, and that's that. I do know that critical stuff is being submitted, but it isn't passing peer review. (There is an exception I can think of, but this was criticism within the field, i.e., criticizing certain conclusions, not criticizing the basic work.)
 * Cold fusion is very recent for me, as a field of ongoing interest. As it happened, I'd invested in palladium in 1989, knowing it was a long shot, but a reasonably secure investment. (I bought the actual metal, using a palladium account at Credit Suisse. If I'd bought futures, I'd have lost my shirt.) When it seemed that the original work was not confirmed, I assumed that it had all been a mistake, and I also assumed what is often said, that the continuing research was just "die-hards." I got involved only after I saw abusive process on Wikipedia, and confronted it, this was the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, on spurious grounds that might as well have been lies, they were so divorced from reality. Lenr-canr.org is mainly a repository for permitted copies, often preprints, of published work on cold fusion, it's extraordinarily valuable for anyone who wants to read in the field and who doesn't have academic access, and it's often mentioned as a resource in peer-reviewed journals. It includes nearly all relevant published material, both positive and negative, where permission could be obtained.
 * Then, for Wikipedia, I bought the books, including all the skeptical ones, and studied them. So my position came from that, from familiarity with the literature. Yeah, cranks study cranky stuff, eh? Rots the brain, eh? One should only read what has been Approved.
 * Enough for now? Thanks for dropping by, what floats your boat? --Abd (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy
IF you want to discuss homoeopathy and different models of efficacy I would suggest a different avenue than the Ramanand Jhingade article. We have an integrated RationalWiki:Forum or the homeopathy talk page, or even the Saloon bar. Or if you want a space to write out your thoughts we have an essay space and people will respond on the talk page of that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you have good supporting evidence, (which maybe exits [exists --Abd (talk)], though I doubt it) make a single line counter in an article and link to it. I've done that with some of the food woo articles, where we are slowing figuring out that *maybe* there is something to it.  I don't try to argue it there, just say "Mayo clinic has suggested that..."  then let the arguments go on the talk pages as TMT suggested.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome, seriously. --Abd (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, I start where I start, when I see something that might be worthy of comment. That was just Talk, I was perhaps confused by what would be Talk on Wikipedia, usually, that is on your actual content pages. I noticed this as soon as I saved the second edit. Oops! I undid that one -- don't have rollback yet so I was a bit slow. Congratulations on the fast patrolling! And also thanks for the suggestions. I go way back with homeopathy, I had face to face discussions with Andy Weil when he was quite young... My view is what might be called skeptical detachment, that allows me to see possibilities beyond straight out Bogus! Yeah, much of the theory of homeopathy is Awful, but medicine is still an art, as practiced. Evidence-based medicine is often based on very thin evidence. Or even just plain bogus evidence. But I'll still trust it, usually. Better than nothing. Usually. That's the thing about homeopathy, at least it will usually do no harm. Unless I put off that prostatectomy for six months, with PSA levels going nuts, hoping that some homeopathic remedy will work. After all, it made me feel better! At least my homeopath cares about me! (That may have a lot to do with the effectiveness of some homeopathic treatments, someone who cares. Who takes the time to listen. I've seen regular doctors who do this, and regular doctors who don't. Which is more effective? I've also used homeopathic remedies, very rarely, and have used them, also rarely, to my kids. Great stuff. For what it was used for. So is caring and love, which that represented. They didn't need to go to a doctor, they just needed to feel like someone cared that they were hurting, and they definitely felt better. So, for that, it was very cheap. And if they'd developed more serious symptoms, I'd have been on the phone to their pediatrician or on the way to the emergency room. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly tip
Hi ABD, it's good to have you here, I think you are challenging conventional thought and that is always welcome. Having said that I think you need to cut down your post size. I have a remarkable talent for being able to read long boring posts, but I often find myself drifting off and unable to read your posts; this one would be a prime example. I understand the desire to explain every facet of your argument so that common objections to your point of view can be headed off at the pass. Unfortunately when confronted with a block of text like this the most common response will be not to read it. Perhaps make your point succintly and if asked for clarification you can elaborate. Tielec01 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tielec01. I appreciate your concern. It's obviously not the first time I've heard this, I've been writing for on-line communities, mailing lists, etc., since the mid-1980s. Here is the problem, I hope you will understand.
 * I've been a professional writer and editor, and, indeed, I still am. I know how to write succinctly, and how to write effective polemic, and I can do it when needed. However the process is this: I write fully, then I edit it down. It takes much more time than just writing. I can also write with extreme care, but that, again, takes much longer than just writing.
 * There is a process which sometimes works, which is to go back and forth with brief comments. However, a lot can be lost, i.e., I come across ideas of interest and if I don't express them when they come up, they don't come back.
 * What I suggest, in fact, for others, is not to read what seems to long!
 * You are assuming that I'm making a point, by the way. Sometimes I am, but often I'm simply exploring a topic. Writing is how I learn. I assert stuff, I take the risk that I'm sticking my foot in my mouth. It's a very fast way to learn, and I've become, in a few areas, a world-class expert, through this process, by doing it in the presence of experts!
 * If anyone thinks that my posts are doing damage by being too long, I suggest collapsing or archiving them -- or asking me to do it. You might notice that today I archived two sections of my writing, so that there was less burden on the page. Unless there is a strong reason for everything to be immediately visible, if the archiving is neutral, I've never objected to it. Does RW have collapse templates? I think I'd prefer collapse, generally, but it does leave long text on the page, which is sometimes an issue. Archiving to history, with an appropriate link, doesn't do that.
 * What is really cool is later redaction of discussions, to make the overall discussion clear as to what was expressed, what agreements were found -- and what was not found -- but it's rarely done. I've used hypertext with collapse to make huge rambling discussions into coherent consensus documents. In fact, that I was able to do this, when what was decided was what a certain cabal didn't like, was a major reason I was eventually banned on Wikipedia. They always complained about "wall of text," but that was a cover. Sure, they didn't like wall of text, and that resonated with some users (and not others) but really what they didn't like was deep discussion that actually seeks consensus, and this was demonstrated many times. They'd been able to maintain power by avoiding those deeper discussions. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sysop
Read the Sysop guide.-- 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Aw, shoot! Didya have to go do that? Here I am, I've just gotten closer to a real promotion, it's up to five minutes, and you have to come along and permanently demote me. Harmless? What do you think I am, silly putty? I suppose, now, I'm expected to RTFM. I can't say I wasn't warned, though, I did read some of that crap. What other silly requirements are there? --Abd (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need Ottava
Or is he here already? -- MtD Pinko Scum   19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt it. Ottava has no history of concealing his on-line identity, and he was pretty careless about concealing his real-life identity. He did managed to block or get some people blocked for outing him, but he'd really outed himself, bragging about his work with Wikiversity on a WikiMedia mailing list with a public archive, or, once, putting up his real university transcript. So if he comes here, I'd expect an account under User:Ottava Rima or under his real name, which I won't give here unless there is overwhelming public demand. It's pretty easy to find, though.


 * As to needing him, for what? Lulz? Poking at a caged bear? Sadistic pleasure in watching self-immolation? What? --Abd (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well obviously for the lulz. Can you imagine how he'd go down here? Oh my! The japes we'd have! -- MtD Pinko Scum   19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to abstain from further comment on Ottava. Just no good reason for it. He's in enough trouble already, if a possible employer does a little research, so, 'nuff said. --Abd (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you might be as mad as a balloon but you're a decent chap Abd. I dips me lid to you. -- MtD Pinko Scum   19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jus watch oot yr brains dunna fall oot. --Abd (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * lolwut? -- MtD Pinko Scum   20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I had something enormously witty to say here
but I forgotted what it was. Here then instead:



-- MtD Pinko Scum   03:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MtD. I have an immediate suggestion for its use. When you screw yourself, you can use that to hold down the top of your head, to keep your brains from falling out. --Abd (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is a very good idea. To date I've been using half a brick but your idea makes much better sense. -- MtD Pinko Scum   04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wings help, though half a brick is adequate for half a brain. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my reasoning too. -- MtD Pinko Scum   05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike. Yes, scary. --Abd (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion, RNS
promotion by Reckless Noise Symphony. Thanks, RNS. If this isn't revoked by some inconsiderate jerk, I can now move on to much better things than tangling with a mindless mob and trolls from Wikipedia. I'm shutting down email notification of changes, but I'll leave email in place if anyone wants to contact me. I may still edit from time to time, a few button pushes, but I doubt I'll be discussing much. Too much work, and I'm now free. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Piss off moron.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind invitation. I will take you up on the offer, and proceed to piss here, since that's what's supported by this community, and as this is a place where morons are invited to piss, and I'll seriously write and edit elsewhere, such as for peer reviewed journals, covering real science. (see page 29 of the preprint) I've got plenty to do, much more than that minor task in 2010! Next paper, I may be a co-author, if I put in the work. The promotion leaves me free to do it, having completed my service here, I hope. Pissing is much easier than original writing and real editing, and, besides, it feels so good. Enjoy! --Abd (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, RNS. about your ass being laughed off. The mob action was called "fast archiving" which refers to setting the bot instructions to 2 days, in part, see the Talk edit history, and also to placing an archive collapse "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." on the active discussion with Tweenk, the only real content discussion going on. (Tweenk had interspersed reply to a long comment of mine, making it totally unreadable, so I restored readability by collapsing the inserts and added subsection headers so each subsection could be edited. Tweenk didn't mind -- and I asked. The alternative would have been to move Tweenk's comments outside my own comment, losing their context, or, then, requiring that my original comment be repeated for the back and forth. The collapses were all labeled as what they were. The collapse added was not, which is why the "do not modify" notice comes up. RNS, I'll stick with "idiots," though they aren't literally idiots, just ignorant and stupid, which is what "idiot" colloquially means. Actually, what they are is "viciously stupid." Spade a spade, isn't that what RationalWiki is for?


 * "You are teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs." (William M. Connolley, Wikipedia.) I've been doing this stuff since before many of you were born. (Conference moderator on the W.E.L.L. 1980s -- and much more.)


 * Your promotion had this comment: (Not really sysop material, IMO.) You are absolutely right. This shows what is sysop material here. It speaks for itself.


 * I see that I have been promoted to a higher status than I thought. Even though supposedly my site block would have expired, it hasn't, contributions still show the block, pages other than this can't be edited, IP autoblock is active, I'd have to reassign my IP, and I can't be arsed. Good thing. I'll email Tweenk.


 * And one more comment. Some years ago, on Wikipedia Review, I wrote about being blocked as a promotion, and being given sysop rights as a demotion. I was serious then, and I'm serious now. When I was first blocked on Wikipedia, I wrote, "Iridescent, you don't know how happy you have made me." Unfortunately, it was all a stupid mistake, they thought I'd been harassing Fritzpoll -- and it looked like that --, but Fritzpoll himself became my biggest supporter there. Long story. It would have saved me thousands of hours if I'd stayed blocked then. On the other hand, I'd not have noticed cold fusion, I'd not now be connected with real scientists, I'd not be using my Cal Tech education with Richard P. Feynman, freshman and sophomore physics and Linus Pauling, freshman chemistry, etc. And I only made those real science connections when I was again blocked. So ... we never know. --Abd (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're hilariously funny given your lack of social understanding. So let me put this clearly to you: I DID NOT DESYSOP YOU FOR BEING A DISSIDENT HERE. Of course, your persecution complex tells you otherwise, but I wouldn't expect anything different. Rather, it's your suerficial and outright arrogant attitude, particularly your use of insults and ad hominem attacks on members of this site as well as the site itself when we simply want a civil discourse with you, that makes you 100% not suitable to be a sysop. I've dealt with many dissidents on this site. Some I got along with well, others couldn't have been more wrong. But it's a matter of the attitude and overall candor of the editor in question that justifies how we treat them. Childish edit-warring, calling people, essentially, liars, ad hominem attacks on editors who are simply trying to engage in a civil discourse on an article to which you agree DOES NOT  a sysop make. In fact, your arrogant and overall shitty attitude not only does not help your cause, but makes me and everyone else laugh when you then go on the whine and bitch about how "we aren't really rational."


 * As an addendum, if you wish to give the same sort of shitty-attitude in your response to this post that you've shown on this Wiki so far, save yourself the time. I have no interest in reading anymore of your gibbering screeds. 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, RNS. I try. Some people lie or display such reckless disregard for truth that using the word is justified. I'm careful about that claim, I was a usenet moderator for many years -- still am, technically -- and I don't use it lightly. I was referring to misrepresentation of a source, after the error had been pointed out. When the misrepresentation continued, it was then justified to call it a lie, fully. That the word is often abused to mean, simply, "I disagree," does not negate the legitimate use.
 * You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. You show a couple of examples of what would, on Wikipedia, be completely beyond the pale. But this is not Wikipedia, and the behavior you cite is nowhere near what seems to be routinely tolerated here, even encouraged, and I could cite many examples that were not just uncivil, but viciously so. Your comments are smug and self-satisfied, particularly about the "many dissidents," as you divide them into groups based on what you imagine to be their qualities, i.e., if you didn't get along, it was because they couldn't have been more wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that the difference might be that some touch your own nerves?
 * No, I know perfectly well what is happening here. It's not surprising, but I don't know the end of it, that's all.
 * You are utterly incompetent at judging what I've been doing, and you seem to have overlooked something.
 * I'm seeing you whining about what is only my expression of either what I know or what I think. And you think you have some control over this. No, RNS, you promoted me and I'm not complaining about that at all. I'd suggest that the responses you are projecting onto me represent your own warped thinking, and you imagine that my first response here was pure sarcasm. Nope. It's real.
 * It's having the sysop bit that is a demotion, because it places the user in the company of the other sysops and encourages interaction, with the nutty, intrinsic sound-bite interchange of ineffective blocks, a joke that gets old quickly. I don't think you understand your own wiki.
 * What's my "cause," RNS, which you imagine I'm not helping? Essentially, you are clueless. You are not even wrong. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a fact
I suppose I should make something clear. The owner of a publicly editable web site, representing itself as open to that, and representing that it represents truth, or neutrality, fairness, science, or some similar claim, does have a right to control the editing process, but, because of the public representations, also has a responsibility to the public.

Wikipedia made that claim, and because it appeared to have fair due process, I followed that process for years, until coming to the end of it. Then, it having become clear that Wikipedia was false to its declared ideals, on which many -- including me -- had depended, it became fair game for direct action, outside the strictures of "obedience." Public wikis cannot prevent public editing, not without drastically affecting the openness on which they depend, or spending major resources to prevent "block evasion" and "sock puppetry." Those who repress and prevent fair process from actually resolving disputes, and those who allow it, are responsible for ensuing damages. Not the person who attempted to work "within the law" and who was therefore excluded.

There are people active on this wiki who are the same people who created and sustained the Wikipedia mess, I know one for sure and there are some others who certainly smell like that.

This is not a content issue, and it is not about opinions on this or that. It's about blocking and revert warring, without discussion, in order to maintain personal opinions and prevent and suppress dissent.

This is not a complaint, in fact. This is simply a notice that this wiki, or any wiki, makes its own bed, and then must lie in it. I do not know where RationalWiki will go, and what will happen, because I don't know the operational core except a little. I do know that a faction that I have encountered before is active here (which is about factional position, it's not a specific accusation against specific users, beyond one.) That faction causes more damage to rational skepticism than any woomeister could possibly cause. --Abd (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * tl;dr version: nobody likes my crank theories, i'm a persecuted but correct minority; why isn't this a RATIONAL wiki?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not rational, though some people can be. Almost all experts are cranks about their field, and if there are any exceptions who actually edit wikis, they would be rare. I'm not persecuted, though, that requires someone with far more resources than anyone here, and especially not you, Mikal. I'm so impressed. Nice hair, though, I'll give you that. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, by the way, what theory? Perhaps if you'd actually attempt to answer that question, you might learn something. There is a theory, but you don't know what it is. --Abd (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you, although i was wearing the thing backwards that day. bit curious,. how is a picture of me wearing a wig so i could have a somewhat different Facebook picture indicative of how much power i have? -- il' Dictator   Mikal  21:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A wig? I did think that, but didn't want to insult you. This explains the lack of power, check out the Samson story. so never mind, I'm even less impressed. Wigs don't cut it. --Abd (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My hair naturally is curly, so i prefer to keep it short-- il' Dictator   Mikal  21:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an African daughter, as to "curly." Kinky, really. It's a choice: long and amazingly beautiful, but a lot of necessary care (and pain, when it needs to be disentangled), or short and easy. Anyway, there is something about long hair. Right now, mine is halfway down my back. But it's wavy, not curly. Of course, it's mostly grey to white now. It was short for many years before this, and long for years before that, etc. Some of this and some of that. --Abd (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect out of RW
If you don't like us, if you think so little of us, if we're really all the things you think we are, why are you still here? What do you hope to achieve? Seriously, if it's other than becoming a despised troll, you're failing badly. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "here"? I'm sitting in my apartment. I started editing RW because I saw some good stuff here and some crap. I was effectively invited, or trolled into, working on cold fusion. Seemed friendly to me, so I did. I laid out what I might work on, on my user page.


 * There is a piece of my history there, it might explain why I'd be interested in rational skepticism. I'm a skeptic. Hopefully, a real one, but we all make mistakes sometimes.


 * Wikis create the response that they get. Various users, including a prominent Wikipedian, attempted, early on, to harass me, they were quite explicit, they wanted to drive me away. On the other hand, I was given the sysop bit. I hadn't asked for it. So I played the RW game. And then the bit was lifted. So I'm playing a different game, since I've been promoted back to ordinary user. Well, Autopatrolled, last time I looked. If I'm blocked, that is a promotion to "I Can Do Whatever I Want." Being a "despised troll" can be quite a promotion, depending on who is doing the despising. And if it means poking a stick in your eye, well, don't stick your eye in my face.


 * This community plays the game that getting the bit is a demotion, and being blocked is a promotion. But some obviously don't actually believe that. I believe it, because of years of experience. I described Wikipedia that way maybe two years ago, on Wikipedia Review. So I'm playing that game on a deeper level. I'm not attached.


 * While I'm wordy, I prefer to demonstrate stuff. One action can be worth a thousand pictures, and a picture a thousand words. I haven't looked around this morning. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Can I introduce you to User:JimJast? You have much in common. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any two human beings have much in common, and to a member of a different tribe, "they" all look the same. You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself. Jast might or might not be interesting, but he was obviously an incompetent writer.
 * Now, what's your purpose here? If it is to communicate and develop cooperation, I'll suggest that you are failing miserably. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you really wanna know
The community is in charge here, with some users having more authority then others in terms of wiki-based power. We are a CP Refugee site afterall -- il' Dictator   Mikal  15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do know the structure, Mikal, do you think I'm a Compleat Idiot? You are describing the wiki, I was describing myself and other users, as individuals. Wikis are based on individual freedom of action, lack of a priori approval, generally. That strength is part of the problem, the problem isn't the freedom, it is the lack of clear and efficient dispute resolution structure to handle conflict, and certain other niceties of democratic tradition that somehow came to be considered archaic and unnecessary, in the world of "quick." So wikis are a pale shadow of what they could be, and, I predict, will eventually be.


 * You have, by the way, confused authority with power. The legal owner of the site has authority and power (and legal responsibility, which goes with those). The owner is in charge. However, the owner has delegated power to the user community, and may be more or less hands-off, unless true legal issues come up. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On a public wiki, though, there is no way to prevent anyone from editing, without requiring real-world identity verification. Accounts can be blocked, content can be embargoed, but to totally prevent someone from editing requires draconian efforts that cause collateral damage, and that then require constant human maintenance. I don't think you want to see me demonstrate this, more than I already did. If you had checkuser, you'd be seeing more and realizing more of the problem. It's trivial on Wikipedia, where administrators have vastly overblown ideas of their own power. As soon as a user realizes that a "banhammer" doesn't actually hurt, the user is free. It is the administrator who is caught in a trap (unless they recognize that they are also free, but most don't get that. The ones that get caught are the ones who believe in their own power over others, because it drives them crazy trying to prove that the power is real.)


 * Once that game of whack-a-mole is established, the administrators damage their own wiki. I did demonstrate this with Wikipedia, it was my last set of public actions there. That only came into play when I'd been indeffed, and when edit filters were set to prevent me from self-identifying edits (rather stupid, eh? it forced them to guess, and, of course, they guessed wrong and blocked other users believing that they were me, and then when I tried to mitigate that damage, they revision-deleted those efforts), and self-reversion doesn't make sense without self-identification -- self-reversion means that there is nothing to clean up, unless an edit is truly offensive or illegal. After that, and when all "cooperative" block evasion (i.e, self-identified, self-reverted, leaving only a record in history that could be reverted back in by any user) was made more cumbersome, and so I ceased it, I registered a sock and had a field day for several weeks, getting more done than I'd been able to accomplish "legitimately" for some years, so heavily watched and harassed I'd become. Most of the work of that sock persisted, even after an arb decided to checkuser. I had not attempted to conceal the traces. I could have and, well, it's confidential. I'd played this game, from the other side, for years, I knew it well. My intention, in that period (about a month) was simply to explore the limits, how far would they go? I did not test it all the way. I documented what I did, because my goal was to probe and test community structure, and actual function. Which is quite different from what is stated in the policies and guidelines. It was all quite useful, and there were some positive changes to policy that resulted, from the over-reactions.


 * It's seemed to me that RationalWiki has avoided this trap, largely and overall. I'm not seeing that you have avoided it, personally, as my block log from you shows. Looks like you aren't being supported, Mikal. So far. At some point they will realize what a nuisance you are becoming. Or not. I don't have a crystal ball, and it's more fun that way. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraphrase - "Ha ha! Look how clever I was at getting myself banned for life from WP. Now I'll try the same thing at RW!" Jack Hughes (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not banned for life. Just finally said "fuck you," when I was ready to give up editing Wikipedia openly. I still edited it after that, and quite effectively. I could almost certainly get unbanned, if I wanted to, I know the process and the politics. I found I didn't want to, so I didn't try. No value, what, the opportunity to "cooperate" with a gang of vicious nutters? I do occasional wikitext for Wikipedia, now, for pay, about $50 per hour. It doesn't necessarily involve editing the site itself. Satisfied customers. I was a professional editor before Wikipedia, so, back to that!
 * Sure, the "same thing" at RW, though you have no clue what I actually did at Wikipedia. On RW, I was able to quickly get a measure of the community and the possibilities here, in reasonable depth, in about, what, two weeks? There are a few sensible people here, but the mob is mostly nutty pseudoskeptics who are clueless about real science and real skepticism, but they know what is "true," i.e., what they believe, and they are as secure in their smug self-satisfaction and sense of superiority as any "believer," they merely prefer different woo. I'm done here, with little exception, if any. Wikipedia was quite a bit friendlier, with large numbers of sane people, but gradually they retired in disgust. Still, I only had problems there when a major faction, including people like David Gerard, who is active here, finally recognized me as a threat. It took them about two years to gather sufficient cover for what some wanted to do much sooner. And they lost a famous administrator in the process, and that faction has been heavily damaged. Maybe that's why David is here, I don't know. Doesn't matter, he's welcome to you and you to him.
 * I've shut down email notification of watchlist changes, except for this page, so I no longer see the regular flow of drek.
 * Bye-by, Jack, you don't know your own name. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for editing the comments of others on Talk:Cold fusion. Yeah, it's an indef. If you care about being unblocked make your case here. Should anyone else decide to unblock you, I'll not argue, but I think you've been tolerated for long enough. You're an intensely corrosive presence in any collaborative website, particularly one like this. -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   08:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have dropped this into the lap of the Goderators. -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   10:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked. Fine to hand over to moderators, but an infinite block FIRST is just ridiculous. LowKey (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems I did accidentally remove a comment from an editor. Not "comments." Autoblock is still standing, and I can't be arsed to evade it, or I'd fix my mistake. It happened because the section headers had been edited (Bad Idea!), changing level, while I was writing my comment, and that seriously garbaged up the process, creating edit conflicts and some weird stuff. I was aware of the new comment, and would never have deliberately touched it. Contrary to the claims of some on that page, I have no habit of editing the comments of others. Rather, previously, when Tweenk edited *my* comments, interspersing his, without marking off what was mine and his clearly (indention alone with long comments gets lost visually on a wiki page), I created subsections with headers, and collapsed his interspersals and my responses, to make it all subsection-editable, with the original being more readable. I did not actually edit Tweenk's comments, I merely framed them. Tweenk did not complain, but others who wanted me banned immediately did. I've seen this kind of behavior for years, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Once they are after you, you'd better not jaywalk, or even look like you are jaywalking. And then, when enough of them are yelling about your jaywalking, some other bright soul will conclude, "Well, I don't have time to look at this, but obviously this guy is seriously disruptive, look at how many people are upset, and, bang! an "independent" decision to ban.
 * Meanwhile MtD provided me with some amusement. I've written that being blocked is a promotion, and it really does function that way. RW is a collaborative project, as long as you fit the square holes. Roundies, get out of here! My comments on Talk:Cold fusion were about the article but in response to Tweenk, who does sort-of know his ass from a hole in the ground, though I'm not quite sure that he's ready to be trusted without diapers. Maybe someday soon. Tweenk knows enough to raise issues that require more than sound-bite response, and can't be arsed to write developed polemic (which would be brief, but which takes a lot more effort). Otherwise I'd not have responded at all, I've no interest in debating idiots, or cleaning up RW messes, just because I know more, on those issues; I made substantial contributions to the article, many of which still stand. But -- OMG! Someone is Wrong on the Internet! Sorry, honey, I'll be late for dinner.
 * Been there, done that, for way too long. The dinner got cold, the honey left, and the real stuff that is truly inspiring got badly neglected. As I wrote on that page, if you want to communicate with me, this Talk page will work. I'd not have noticed the block at all, except for MtD taking a dump here. Obviously he wanted to communicate, he must have a point to make. However, I don't trust what I read, and text is not an unmitigated advance in communication. See MtD's first edit here.
 * LowKey, I'm not thrilled about the demotion, but them's the breaks. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And then P-Foster demoted me even further, back to sysop. Starting again from almost the ground floor. It could be worse, though. There is a dungeon in the basement. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aagghh! Wasted more than an hour on RationalWiki this morning. I was even going to add this image to the moderation talk page, with a caption about RationalWiki users, with independent judgment and clear thinking, but firmly united in purpose, using pickaxe handles to Defend the Wiki against a mob of concern trolls and users who edit the talk page comments of others. This place sucks, literally. Sucked me right in. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't want to know. But if you prefer, I will explain, in detail, on your talk page. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, sorry, sorry, my bad...I thought these were the comments of someone else. Nevermind.  -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Smart guy! Have some tea, you don't have to rush out. In a hurry? Have a nice day, then. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. So obviously you can't edit other people's comments, although I guess it was just an accident. No big deal, really. Please stop this annoying "golly please block me so I can't come here anymore" schtick, it's tedious. The same policy exists on Talk:Cold Fusion, although you're welcome to edit as normal elsewhere (unless the same problems crop up, of course). Have a nice day.-- 20:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've asked nicely, but, if I don't pay attention to your admittedly polite request, would you please promote me so I am not tempted to come here any more? This affair really did demolish my morning. Very effective trolling, I'd say. Look, that trope is woven all through RW. If you don't like it, why is it practically everywhere? I didn't invent this, I found it. What am I supposed to do, pretend I'm butt-hurt by the attempted harassment? Perhaps I should put up unblock requests every time I'm blocked? I should go to the chicken coop or that moderator page and complain about abusive sysops? What?
 * If I took this seriously, I'd go effing crazy. Instead, I'm merely a crank, in some good company.
 * Okay, okay, I did independently come up with the promotion stuff, on Wikipedia Review, I wrote about being blocked on Wikipedia as being "promoted," which it is. That's well-known among long-term Wikipedians. So I did take it up here with some personal enthusiasm. It's fun. I hope you don't drop it.
 * Perhaps if you don't want me playing that game, maybe I am too old for this, actually, you should suggest to the players on the other side that they stop trolling for it? --Abd (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. "Abd wants attention?" I didn't start this flap, and I didn't file that report, for sure. I just responded to Tweenk on Talk:Cold fusion, with a detailed response, and because of a user meddling with the section headers ("editing the comments of others"), the edit conflicts caused me to accidentally remove Bob M's (and my) comments. And then the usual gang of clowns went ballistic. None of this was specifically expected, because I did not expect to make the mistake that gave them the opportunity. I can predict this from history, though, AD: they will continue to do this, just about whatever I do, if I edit at all. That's a prediction of collective behavior, individuals may vary.


 * Anyway, suit yourself, I've got Other Stuff to Do. Thank Reason that I'm not a Moderator here. That would really be a demotion, into a dungeon, with hosts of nasty creatures for company. My condolences, but, in consolation, it's probably not permanent. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) One more quick comment: When I compare what happened here on Talk:All things in moderation, with the comedy on Wikipedia's ANI, RW's moderation page is so far ahead that it isn't even funny. it's hilarious. Congratulations. Seriously. And, by the way, I will be extra careful to avoid editing the comments of others, except when I feel like it, such as twice today. Won't be the norm, unless it's just too rich. Mostly, I'm not watching RW, today was caused by all the flap over me. Somehow that attracts my participation, like "speak of the devil." --Abd (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)