Well this was a wild-goose chase. Most of what is below about ECW is incorrect, because the software is … misleading. Contrary to what I found, Kevmo has not been blocked on ECW, AFAIK, and his posts have not been deleted. He did change accounts, apparently, creating some of the confusion. I’ll explain below. Meanwhile, I’m leaving this because there are tidbits of value. When I’m wrong, I’m happy, because I learn things! I’m also glad I caught this before publishing it.
remember, Kevmo is not blocked on ECW and I see no sign now that ECW posts are being deleted (thought i know that some are, because a very few of mine (out of 750 or so at this point) have been. I received no notice. I still consider that a bit rude. But none of those posts were important or represented significant work in writing. I’ve written many long posts there, and they are consistently approved, so far. Now, what I thought until I checked enough to figure out what had happened:
Burnt toast, actually vaporized, nuked. Only small frangments left. Kevmo may have been commenting on ECW since 2011, at least that is when one Disqus account was created. (Below, it looks more like 2014) 2011 was before the Rossi announcement, and he may have commented on other Disqus blogs, but those posts are also gone — and Frank Acland would not have access to them, one would think). The account shows no posts, but 9 upvotes.
I found this checking an old email with notifications from ECW. It has links to Kevmo responses to my comments there. Those responses now read “This user is blocked.”
I had been seeing that notice frequently recently, and wondered who it was. Apparently Frank is nuking all contributions, this is not merely a block from posting. This makes responses to him appear out-of-context, that is not done on, say, Wikepedia, unless truly necessary (i.e, a post contains illegal content or outing information,) and the page record still shows what was done and by whom. But normally, even gross incivility will still be present in history. That way, a user’s history is visible, which can then affect future decisions. As well, discussion context is not lost. I can look and recover a bit from my emails. I could attempt to find Google cache or archives, maybe. Too much trouble for too little gain.
There are more in that sequence. Kevmo argued beyond all sanity. As I pointed out there, he argued on LF with lawyers about law, creating endless noise.
Look at this page, mincemeat. Search the page for kevmo, which will bring up the responses to him. Google search for “kevmo site:e-catworld.com” pops up these threads, and it also popped up http://e-catworld.com/community/profile/myprofile/1053/kevmo
which displays a page no found error. But then Google cache would have it for a while. Sure enough (it’s faster to load the text version):
Joined: March 2014
Last Active: April 2014
(it is conceivable that there is more than one kevmo account. Normally the software will prevent that, but sometimes….) Looking at “kevmo” posts as found by Google, in the cache, I found something quite odd: In cache stored Aug 28, 2017 06:14:04, A post was still there, very brief, and the user name “kevmo” was a link, to https://disqus.com/home/channel/presidenttrumpchannel/ It may be possible to use a link like that as a user name. How the software will treat this, I don’t know. Maybe kevmo was hacked. But the behavior was similar between the ECW account and LF.)
“Nuke” tools were created to make deleting massive spam easy. Kevmo was a troll, but not a spammer, but maybe he made a mistake and Frank reacted.
and now I found tthe other Kevmo account.
Very active on that trump channel.
On LENR Forum, firstname.lastname@example.org is still unbanned, though he’s pushed it, was short-banned for a while, as I recall. His behavior, what I’ve seen, would eventually get him banned almost anywhere. One normally has to work hard to get banned on LF. I got immediately perma-banned by touching a weak spot. Kablooey! I declared a boycott (due to abrupt and unnecessary deletion of posts, very rude to writers, and pending resolution) and was immediately banned without fuss. Nobody else has repeated this trick, so the experimental result is unconfirmed. Current practice on LF is what would have satisfied me….
Frank’s deletion practice on ECW is a bit disturbing. But it’s his blog, and if we don’t like it, we can boycott it. That’s normal free society. Matters shift a little if one claims to represent a community; then some level of responsibility can arise.
Meanwhile, just a small taste of Kevmo with his better behavior, which is still trolling, just not so blatant. (At this point, this is Kevmo’s most recent LENR Forum post, 5 days ago.)
do experiment, report results and let peer decide if you did the experiment correctly or not.
When that happens more than 150 times in peer reviewed literature, is the effect real?
If this were a simple question, asked for the first time, this wouldn’t be trolling. However:
- Kevmo has asked this or very similar questions many times.
- This was off-topic in the subject thread.
- the question is misleading.
Standard troll tactic: find something to ask that incorporates a misleading assumption, but that could be deniable as a possible fact. This then generates a response (and it is the response that the troll wants.)
There is a legitimate issue: experimental confirmation, what is it, and has it happened for LENR? Even asked that way can be a little misleading: What is “LENR”? Jed Rothwell’s paper covering papers in the Britz database, about 2009, showed 153 papers considered “positive” on excess heat. However, “excess heat” is not well defined. How much heat? Under what conditions?
Experimental replication, to be clear confirmation, should be exact replication, though less-exact replication is weaker confirmation. Those papers were all over the map. (That massive variation was used as an argument against LENR, actually.) Further, if there are many looking for some effect, and if experimental error can vary — and it can — then there is confirmation bias or the “file drawer effect” to consider.
My opinion is, from years of study of the literature, that there is an adequate perponderance of evidence to consider an anomalous heat effect is real, at least for the purposes of taking further steps to investigate carefully.
Half the experts on the 2004 U.S. DoE panel would apparently agree, and two-thirds of those considered the evidence that the effect was nuclear as “somewhat convincing,” most of them. One considered it “convincing.” The panel was unanimous on suggesting further research, this was not the conclusion of a panel that thought there was no evidence.
This was a panel not familiar with the field, presented with a huge stack of papers, and some of them attending a one-day seminar with limited time for serious back-and-forth, no process to iron out wrinkles and errors.
However, by now, Kevmo will know that he is taunting oldguy, who simply stated normal procedure in science.
150 reports could be based on a combination of factors: artifacts, prosaic causes, interpretive errors, and on and on. The way this is normally handled in science is that someone eventually puts together a definitive review to be, itself, published under peer review. That actually happened in 2010, with Storms’ review in Naturwissenschaften, but that review has some problems; nevertheless there is no competing review. There are many other reviews, none that disagree with Storms.
However, nothing out there addresses all the significant possible problems. Reviewing the literature on certain issues, I find that they were, indeed, addressed long ago, but I know of no recent clear and complete reviews that show this. We are building that kind of content here. Participation is thin, but it is happening. Noise like what Kevmo makes doesn’t help.
oldguy’s post was also off-topic, following other similarly off-topic posts by others, including Kirk Shanahan and Alan Smith (who commonly posts off-topic when he feels like it, provoking more off-topic responses.)
By the way, some would consider this post “doxxing.” Which is a standard synonym for “Bad Behavior,” as if conditions don’t matter. On WMF wikis, which have the most developed rules and procedures of any site permitting discussion, this level of doxxing, when relevant to possible decisions about user behavior, would not be considered a violation, though it can depend on whose ox is being gored. It would not be allowed when there is no legitimate purpose. The research I did today confirms, on the fact, that Kevmo on ECW is the same as Kevmolenr@gmail.com on LF, and this apparently reveals his email address. But Kevmo made the decision to reveal it with his registration on LF.
Nevertheless, administration on CFC (currently me) will consider requests to have information redacted. Given the state of affairs at this point, it would probably be premature, but there is no charge for a request! (That is also WMF practice, any user can request an administrator “revision-delete” information, I did it at times on Wikiversity, and any user may request a steward (for any wiki) or oversighter (for the few wikis who have them locally) hide such information even from administrators.)
However, I would want to make sure that the request was authentic. I’m committed to confidentiality, absent necessity, but if someone doesn’t trust me and my judgment, TANSTAAFL. Eventually, we will have more administrators here, so there will be choices.
Explanation of my error
Apparently, frustrated with many notifications of Kevmo responses, I blocked him. I did not recall doing this. What led me to this was the avatar and snippet of text still shown. The avatar was a link to the user account, which wasn’t the old Kevmo account, but a new one. And it displayed a message that I could not see this profile because I had blocked the user. Aha! So I unblocked, and I have no other users blocked.
Eventually, after unblocking, when I reloaded the pages with those Kevmo posts, they now appeared normally. Someone else would surely have pointed this out to me. At least I hope so! When I write something blatantly incorrect, or even mildly so, I hope people will speak up, this is part of how I learn. I also tend to track down anomalies and mysteries, and those pop-ups indicated a second account, and, sure enough, here it is: Kevmo.
Yes. Most active on Trumpchannel. An amusing post from him there:
This channel is for Trump supporters. If you’re here to troll you won’t last long.
And then more posts responding to the “troll.”
‘Nuff said on that. When I have blocked a user on ECW, a message appears with their posts, “This user is blocked.” I get no information about who the user is.
On LENR Forum, if I block a user, I can see a specific message and there is a bypass so I can read the message if I choose. The Disqus message does not inform me that I’ve blocked the user…. it uses the passive voice, implying that the user is blocked on the site….
To find it, I had to keep looking at the various odd aspects of this, just as the “in reply to” message, with responses to the blocked user, that does show the name of the user, with a link to the profile.
So is this new “Kevmo” the same as the LF account? I’d say yes.