Fringe theories Noticeboard

NPOV edits on Joseph Banks Rhine and other parapsychology articles

There is a current SPI open about this user but as he is promoting fringe theories I mention it here so people can monitor the article because I believe this will be on-going on other articles. The user in question [redacted] is a psychic believer who argues that J. B. Rhine’s experiments actually demonstrated clairvoyance and telepathy. He uploads his POV version of the article [4] on his “Rhine Revival” account many times. He then deletes it knowing that his version will stay on the Wikipedia database. He then cites his Wikipedia edits as a ‘valid’ source on his anti-Wikipedia/pro-parapsychology research project on Wikiversity [5]. His project claims practically all Wikipedia articles are wrong on parapsychology and that all psychics were basically genuine. He has also been doing this sort of thing on the Frederic W. H. Myers article recently, uploading huge chunks of fringe material and spam from his Wikiversity project and then removing it so it is still stored in the database and he can link to it. I have requested that his edits are striked and they are entirely removed from the database but this has not yet happened.

As this user is doing this on two parapsychology articles, it is likely he is doing it on others on different accounts. Has anyone noticed a similar pattern on any other articles? If you do it is likely the same person. (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Abd comment: The IP user created a great deal of noise about some relatively minor socking by [redacted] (Blastikus.) This is the same user who first filed an SPI case about real socking, (though exaggerated) then impersonated [redacted] with a series of socks, causing a huge mess on Wikipedia and then on Wikiversity and on meta. (see the LTA page I’m working on, stewards confirmed the socking, the Wikiversity damage was undone, except for the wasted time, but Wikipedia has never taken notice. This has happened many times, a disruptive user starts offensive process and everyone looks at his target instead at him.) [redacted] should not be socking at all, but what Anglo Pyramidologist (AP) does is far, far worse.

Because I confronted the abuse, AP attacked me, Wikiversity, and the meta wiki, with an avalanche of sock puppets, insults, and threats. And then he created an article on me on RationalWiki, making claims like he will make here. This user will make a fuss about me being banned on Wikipedia, but that was years ago — even though my name seems to come up, still being blamed for how things are. By JzG. Who shows up here. is an open proxy, and as soon as it was blocked, he started again on, and when that was blocked, he started again on a new proxy,

There was no massive socking going on, except by AP. This IP in this sequence admits, more clearly than before that he is actually AP, creator of nearly 200 socks so far on WMF wikis and many more elsewhere. He does that to attack people perceived as enemies. He is the only one I’ve been putting significant effort into documenting, because of his attack on Wikiversity.

I’ve revision deleted the repeatedly added, then deleted, content at Joseph Banks Rhine. Hope that helps — I’m frankly not sure if it perhaps needs an oversighter. And I’ve warned the Rhine Revival account. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

Abd comment: There was no dangerous content there. This was a foolish idea [redacted] had, badly implemented. This was three self-reverted edits on two days, and the content would not be anywhere near worthy of oversight. It probably should have been just left. No harm would have been done. Rev-del is a tool that does not allow the community to oversee what’s happening, that comes up here. The idea was probably to discourage him from doing it. Simply asking him not to would be more effective! Has anyone thought of that? (Me! I asked and I hope he has stopped.)

Thanks for your help on this. The user has since turned up on another account and said he is not being confrontational with other users anymore but is now using this website for archive purposes. In other words he is using Wikipedia as a place to store his fringe material. (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Abd comment: Remember, the IP is highly disruptive, blocked from many accounts, globally locked on many accounts. “Fringe” is actually irrelevant. These edits were problematic only because [redacted] is blocked. He is correct in one way: there is high bias against anything that can be seen as “pro-parapsychology.” Parapsychology is a recognized science, but that faction that opposes it, very strongly, confuses the science, which is the study of the paranormal, with “belief” in the paranormal and possibly pseudoscientific ideas. This has created long-term conflict on Wikipedia, and it’s still going on. These people treat Wikipedia as a battlefield against “pseudoscience” and “woo” and “fringe beliefs,” and at least two long-term warriors in this — who have been sanctioned on occasion for going to extremes — will show up here. [redacted] accuses the IP of being Goblin Face, an old enemy, and, in fact, Goblin Face was AP, and was blocked for that.

He is now using his IP on the Frederic W. H. Myers talk-page claiming he has “refuted” the skeptics. (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)In regard to the removed edits on the Rhine article, he is complaining they have been “censored” [6]. This is cross-wiki abuse, so I guess I will have to take that up at the correct avenue. (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To use the word “censored” to refer to revision-deletion is not particularly inaccurate. This was simply a comment [redacted] made in his resource on Wikiversity. It caused no harm and few would have seen it if not for his arch-enemy bringing it up on Wikipedia. And he changed it. The IP harassed him on his talk page on Wikiversity and filed a request for sanction — which was immediately rejected and the IP was blocked. Wikipedia, however, seems totally clueless. Some people suggested (on Wikiversity and on Wikipedia) that he register account, and it’s fascinating who defended his refusal.

I know it’s shocking, but people can criticize Wikipedia articles on Wikiversity. There are behavioral limits when it comes to criticizing Wikipedians, and it appears he did not cross them.  But this attack IP did.

The checkuser results came back and he has been blocked on four accounts [7]. I just reported Ben’s cross-wiki abuse and socking on Wikiversity. A Wikiversity admin told me “Sorry, anonymous posts have no value in this discussion. Please move on.” [8]. This is very sad. So I guess the abuse will continue into the future. (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser found four accounts were technically indistinguishable. This situation was completely irrelevant to Wikiversity. [redacted] was not disruptive there. AP was very disruptive, and blatantly socked, cross-wiki, after being blocked, continuing significant disruption and attempting to stir up trouble.

Generally users are not sanctioned on one wiki for socking on another, if they do not improperly use multiple accounts on the first wiki. It is totally possible that a user is disruptive on one wiki and not on another. Wikipedia tends to be a high conflict zone. Wikiversity tends to be quiet; it does not have the kind of conflict over content that is common on Wikipedia. Don’t like someone’s educational resource? Write your own! The more the merrier, and they will (properly) be placed such tha  the overall structure is neutral. Discussing article topics on Wikipedia is highly discouraged, it is encouraged on Wikiversity, as it would be in a university. Wikipedians generally have no understanding of this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikiversity is far more like a university, including student projects, essays, original research, etc.

The IP was harassing a Wikiversity custodian, who saw immediately what was happening. Wikiversity has had its fill of Single Purpose Accounts which show up and attack a user. The discussion the IP links was on the custodian’s talk page. The admin removed it. Here is how that discussion stood before removal. Worth reading, [redacted] responds there (and I give [redacted] some advice.) The IP was totally inappropriate, rejected, but insistent. And then the IP, blocked, came back with a new proxy, attacking me, linking to the RationalWiki article on me — that he created as revenge. And then added more. He also harassed me on my talk page, and on my meta talk page. Notice that the last removal of his trolling was by a steward. AP knew he’d be blocked in short order, he doesn’t care.

What was unusual here for AP was using IP. Mostly he creates SPAs, rarely he creates accounts that he uses for a longer time.

Have you actually considered registering as a Wikipedia user? It is free of charge. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He knows. He has created probably over 200 Wikipedia accounts. He claims to have 3 active accounts. He’s not going to spend one of them on this, and he probably partitions his access carefully so that he mostly won’t get whacked by a checkuser. But he makes mistakes and then accounts are exposed.

If I read the material over at the wikiversity talk page of the editor in question, @Abd: over there seems to think that the IP is someone’s sockpuppet, and the IP accuses the named editor of being a sockpuppeteer. Isn’t love grand? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s not just “think.” He actually admits who he is. He admits being the LTA I have been documenting, which is Anglo Pyramidologist as known on Wikipedia. He will try to confuse this with “attacking skeptics,” citing one in particular, some old work he found, calling it “doxxing,” and “harassment,” and he archived so it couldn’t be deleted — which left unmistakeable footprints — and then rushed around pointing to it in many places. I’ve become, it seems, his major target. This was a Fringe Science noticeboard and what he brings to it is completely irrelevant. Watch out for a particular kind of content. Okay, what kind? There is actually very little information about that. Here he goes:

Abd is a known parapsychology advocate and pseudoscience promoter. He has been banned on Wikipedia for sock-puppeting himself and disruption a few years ago.

One sock, used for a short time, not disruptive in itself. Banned by a faction, it’s obvious. But that will be covered elsewhere and it was totally irrelevant on this page. It’s the same faction that AP has allied himself with, and I have seen some evidence that he’s been supported to some degree. That’s coming out here to a degree. I’ll refer to this below.

I am an advocate of scientific investigation, and there was an organization called “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.” That title would be quite equivalent to “Committee for Parapsychology,” because that is the definition. Parapsychology is not a belief system. So, yes, in general, I “advocate” science. However, parapsychology is not my thing. Parapsychology has been a battleground on Wikipedia, and I arranged a resource where the topic could be studied on Wikiversity. I am not a “believer” in what is commonly referred to as “psi.” I also am an advocate of research in a field where two major reviews of the field recommended such research, cold fusion. It’s a fringe field, but … that has to do with how it is seen by “most scientists.” In fact, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, papers and reviews are being published, and one of mine was published, and the research I was reporting on and suggesting be done with increased precision is actually being done, at Texas Tech, fully funded, about $12 million. Last I looked this was science, not “pseudoscience.” What has been found and confirmed remains falsifiable. This pseudoskeptic does not actually know what science and pseudoscience are.

He is a personal friend of [redacted], they both do a lot of edits in promoting paranormal material on Wikiversity, there seems to be no rules over there on content.

I’ve never met him, we have had occasional email contact, and I simply helped get a neutral educational resource going on parapsychology, which studies the paranormal. The Parapsychology resource.

If that is not neutral, any user can fix it, like Wikipedia.

There can be subpages (Wikiversity, unlike Wikipedia, allows subpages in mainspace), some of which are like essays or individual research projects, with attributed authors, who own them. Traditionally (I set up or firmed up much of this process), attached talk page remains open. Users can edit an “owned” resource, but the “owner” will generally be supported by custodians to make it the way he or she wants. It’s their essay or report or research.

The parapsychology resource has been attacked a few times, but Wikiversity has always supported it. Anyone may create a subpage study and own it, as [redacted] in effect owns his. It was set up that way. This avoids endless waste of time on conflicts. And, in fact, people learn. [redacted] has learned, it’s obvious. “Learning by doing” was an original slogan for Wikiversity.

The parapsychology top-level page is not owned. It is a brief summary and then an index into resources and studies, seminars, etc. So there is a subpage, Parapsychology/Sources, and [redacted] has a subpage under that, with his name on it. That clearly identifies it as his work, for which he is responsible. There is also a page of sources compiled by another user, notice, sources deemed hostile to parapsychology or the paranormal. [redacted] found that and put it there. In other words, [redacted] is actually studying the field, even though he presents himself as a believer. That is actually what we want to see on Wikiversity, academic balance.

Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, like Wikipedia. The Parapsychology resource structure does not violate it. Wikiversity is simply neutral by inclusion rather than by exclusion. (Conflict is rare, in fact, except for conflict that appears to come from “outside,” i.e., from Wikipedians thinking something is nonsense and wanting it deleted. I once preserved from deletion the writings of a 7-year old who was being blocked globally for “vandalism.” I recognized what he was, and encouraged him to write his stories in his own user space (things that are not considered useful for others as well as personally useful will not generally be deleted on Wikiversity, but will be moved to user space. That young man is now, as far as I can tell, the youngest WMF sysop. He learned! It took a little work. He made mistakes sometimes that needed to be fixed. He was well worth the effort, and I protected him from the usual Wikimedians who seem to know only block, delete, and blacklist as methods for improving projects. On Wikiversity, the people, “scholars,” are the project.

He will go massive lengths to try and clear [redacted]’s name.

All I did was to identify and document the massive impersonation socking that AP did, this person who is now describing my alleged motives where it is totally irrelevant, in order to attack [redacted] and Wikiversity. Ben was not responsible for that. He was responsible for what he did, and he’s written about that. He has also been impersonated elsewhere, clearly on RationalWiki. But [redacted] was just the initial reason I started to research AP … and then I filed steward checkuser requests and then got a series of global locks issued. This had nothing to do with [redacted]’s actual socking, and whatever [redacted] has done in his life — he has admitted to some prior opinions that I certainly would not support — is irrelevant to me. He was working as a Wikiversity scholar, not being disruptive there, and I generally protected Wikiversitans from attack by Wikipedians (which is not terribly uncommon; it used to be worse.)

Abd claims that a group of ‘skeptical’ editors are out to ‘target’ Ben.

He is, as usual, misrepresenting what I claim. First of all, I don’t know the motives, but attacking [redacted] has been one of many AP behaviors. This is not a “group of skeptical editors,” not what I have been documenting. There may have been some collective attack on [redacted] years ago, but that is not what I have studied. So far, anyway. I have been only looking at the activity of a single person, the sock master, or there are claims that this is two brothers, and I do see two personalities. But I don’t care. If there are two, they are both highly disruptive.

Ben was banned on four socks recently, yet according to Abd I am ‘harrassing’ Ben and his sock-puppetry is ‘harmless’.

Actually, the admin blocking did not tag the socks as Blastikus. However, creating massive discussions in many places, which AP did, and going to Wikiversity and harassing [redacted] on his talk page and trying to get him sanctioned there is definitely harmful. It seems the most disruption — meaning activity creating some need for admin attention — was a set of self-reverted edits, which, if they had been ignored, would have been harmless, at most using up a tiny fraction of a cent worth of disk space. And one editor seemed to find some of that useful. I am not judging that. But there is a huge difference between that level of disruption, which could have been ignored without harm, and what AP created.

“Four socks” sounds like a lot, until one looks and sees how little editing was involved, over an extended time. This was only noticed because AP is obsessed with [redacted]. Why? I have some speculations, but I don’t actually know, because I have not researched [redacted]’s history. 

I guess spamming the J. B. Rhine article like Ben did is harmless then.

That wasn’t “spamming.” AP looks for whatever pejorative term he can use. This was all blatant personal attack, by a block-evading LTA, and ignored on Wikipedia. I handled the IPs on meta based on the cross-wiki abuse — real cross-wiki abuse — and the use of open proxies (which is an automatic block, normally, because it’s used by LTAs and spammers, block evaders or users avoiding checkuser identification with other accounts, and AP does claim to have many active accounts, and it’s believable.

If that was harmful, the harm was very small, compared to the extensive disruption, cross-wiki, AP created in this incident.

Like I said this will continue long into the future. Ben will continue to spam his ‘pro-paranormal’ content from from his Wikiversity project onto Wikipedia. He does it every few months. He needs to be blocked on Wikiversity but nobody over there seems to be interested in this cross-wiki abuse. (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does he “need to be blocked on Wikiversity”? The only disruption on Wikiversity over this has been caused by AP socks. AP wants that because he needs to win, and this is a battle he’s been fighting for some time. I have not gone back to how it happened that Ben was originally blocked on Wikipedia; I think there was interaction with AP elsewhere. Ben was young and perhaps foolish. But I’ve seen others attacked by AP who were not young and foolish, merely a bit naive about how Wikipedia works. AP is clearly not on Wikipedia to improve the project. He is there to attack enemies. 

I doubt anyone is interested but you can have you say here on the matter if you are, here. The reason I take this seriously is because this will not doubt happen again in the future. I will not be further responding. Abd who has been blocked on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is impossible to reason with. 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That request was going nowhere, and nobody showed up. I closed it (“involved close,” but that will normally stand, and IP or SPAs reverting that won’t be tolerated, I’d predict.) Previously, when AP impersonated [redacted], with sock puppets displaying defiance and claiming that Wikipedians could do nothing, a WP admin did go to Wikiversity and complain, and was able to convince a custodian to create a deletion discussion and the resource was deleted and Ben was blocked. To fix that required arranging checkuser of the original filer of the Blastikus report (who had actually acknowledged being a sock, but who pays attention?) and then a user who came to Wikiversity to support the deletion and block request. And all those disruptive accounts, I new were impersonations. It was naive not to at least suspect that! SPAs. Red flag. And then when I started to question it, it started raining socks. I never saw anything like it before. And I was threatened with retaliation if I pursued the matter.

By the way, that was canvassing. Heh! What does the Fringe science Noticeboard have to do with Wikiversity process? That’s not a neutral place to notify people of process…. 

I cannot access revdeleted edits to see their patterns. It seems that a lot of text is being copied. It would be interesting to know if those texts typically include common links which would suit for reporting at WT:WPSPAM for potential blacklisting… —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And where is my pitchfork? (It’s unlikely to be a fruitful source for blacklisting. [redacted] collects book sources and similar materials, as far as I’ve seen, not fringe web sites.)

Abd has defended [redacted]‘s sock-puppetry even claiming [9], when the time is “ripe”, [redacted] should request an unblock request.

I did not say “should.” I said “could,” this is the Standard Offer. [redacted] is not banned, if I’m correct, merely indef blocked. I have not “defended [redacted]’s sock puppetry.” I’ve strongly recommended he not sock. I’m not God, and even if I were, sometimes people don’t do what God tells them to do. Great mystery, eh? Again, AP is trying to find a way to attack. So I am supposedly encouraging a disruptive user to request unblock. It would be a waste of time if he hasn’t learned how to avoid disruption. I was telling him that, however, if he wants to return to Wikipedia (he has said he doesn’t want that), he could manage it, and I know how he could do it. There is a problem with this?

Abd is now stalking and harassing several skeptical Wikipedia editors.

Nope. One former editor, still socking. And he isn’t a legitimate Wikipedia editor. Anglo Pyramidologist/Dan Skeptic/Goblin Face, and many other names, blocked, some globally locked. LTA.

Notice that this user clearly stalks [redacted]. Previous reports brought together Facebook pages, details of what [redacted] had written on Wikiversity, etc. And this user also created a biography on me, on RationalWiki, finding some quite obscure material from long ago and then, incorrectly interpreted, presenting it as libel and smear. The socks are documented here, because when it was documented on RationalWiki — simply a beginning list of sock accounts, something that AP does on Wikipedia with [redacted] — I was promptly blocked there. Not a problem. I moved the documentation here, and it’s getting long. But AP is persistent and scours the internet for mud to toss. So he found something relatively obscure, from months ago, not “now.”

On his personal website (which I wont link to here), he has posted slanderous statements and the full dox, and personal details of user ජපස. He has also done the same to several other skeptical users who used to edit Wikipedia. Outrageous behaviour. 06:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No slanderous statements. Maybe AP should look up “slander.” If what I wrote were false it would be “libel,” not slander. It was almost entirely a list of Wikipedia account names for the user who was previously banned for disruptive editing, which anyone can find with a little patience, and who came back to Wikipedia and is editing freely, with what I’d call factional support, and who had not changed his behavior, in my opinion then (around the beginning of October).  I really don’t recall why I decided to post this, but it went onto a web site of a group that had been discussing him. It was not “full dox.” It had his more recently changed Wikipedia account names, and a new name he’s using professionally. No truly “personal details.”

When AP found this material, what did he do? Did anyone ask me to take it down? (No.) If it contained defamation or error did anyone object (No.) What he did, because he’s been on a mission to take down Abd, was send it to (one page) and the internet archive (the other page), and his posts link to those archived copies in many places, making this allegedly defamatory material far more difficult to remove. When I saw that the page on my blog had been noticed, I immediately set it for private, then edited it to remove the information that the user might want kept private and republished. And I asked moderation on the other forum to take that post down. (Last look, they haven’t) And then I was attacked for taking it down and for asking for it to be removed?

Which shows, clearly, what is important to this troll. Not protecting that user, but attacking AP’s enemies. I’ve seen him do it with many others, now, this is SOP for him.

“Have you actually considered registering as a Wikipedia user? It is free of charge”. No sorry, user Abd likes to stalk skeptical users and write deliberate lies and negative things about them on blogs and forums to damage peoples reputations. He also goes after peoples family members. He has a personal vendetta against anyone who is skeptical of cold fusion or parapsychology. I have tried to get him blocked on Wikiversity before for doxing people, he got some warnings for this but no action was taken against him. I am using proxy IPs to remain anonymous for safety reasons. I even requested for my previous one to be blocked. I will give this up for now, but when [redacted] sock-puppets again or decides to spam his fringe content in a few months I will report him again. There is a user called Manul who used to be excellent at finding [redacted]‘s socks but unfortunately he hasn’t been active recently. (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

With his IP, I could follow him more effectively, and have. That was an open proxy, but he used it elsewhere! He really is rather dim, but he’s persistent and has been pursuing his enemies for years, viciously. I’m told that there has been actual harm. To him, “skepticism” is closely akin to “hatred.” That is not typical of genuine skeptics. Wherever I have posted, I have invited correction (or it has obviously been possible. No corrections have been offered, only threats and attack. And lies about what is in the documents. This all is being documented and some is still private, because it can reveal confidential information. As this troll continues, necessity allows what is otherwise prohibited.

Here is one new account on RationalWiki connected with the IP.  I have “technical evidence” on this one.

I have no “vendetta against people skeptical of cold fusion”. Skepticism of cold fusion is natural. After, all, it is a phenomenon of unknown mechanism that is very difficult to reproduce. To understand the body of work that has been done takes some level of motivation to study. If it’s all bogus, which was more or less the consensus of “scientists,” over 25 years ago, what’s the motivation to put in that work? I support the study of skeptical objections to cold fusion, and have proposed research to resolve open questions. That is science, not pseudoscience, and was the recommendation of both U.S. DoE reviews. The research has been funded, $6 million from a very famous donor, and $6 million in State of Texas matching funds. This is real science, whatever the results.

Unless someone wants to sanction the IP for personal attacks on the apparently banned Abd, who I think probably still shouldn’t necessarily have been insulted (as it seems to me he was) by the IP above, I guess we can close this thread? John Carter (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Smart. Actually, the IP attacks got more and more intense and obvious, with, so far, the use of five open proxies and counting.  See [ LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist – IP reports] on meta. AP is, quite obviously and amply demonstrated, a Long-Term Abuser. Now, if someone is imitating him (which could happen!) what is being imitated is a long-term abuser. I don’t really care who the real person is behind this. Others, who have suffered actual harm, may care and I will provide information to them if they need it. That’s ordinary.

The IP is largely correct about many problems that are happening. And I don’t think the insistence that people register accounts is necessarily a good one because there aren’t a lot of assurances that privacy can be kept (I know this from personal experience). Let this stay open for the normal length of time (twelve days) to see if this settles down. jps (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

JPS is now supporting AP. I think it got worse. More will be revealed. There is no “insistence that people register accounts. Rather, there is simple reality: regular accounts get more respect. And regular accounts, established for so many days with so many edits without getting blocked are autoconfirmed and can edit through semi-protection, which becomes relevant here. The IP editing this Noticeboard page led to it being semiprotected, and the IP later complains about that.

JPS’s comments about privacy would be based on his own very unusual experience. He made a lot of enemies, and was quite visible. He was editing with his university IP, and I think it may have been traced back to him. It is IP editing that is more likely to reveal identity. He has it backwards. He has been, I suspect, pursued and harassed, enough that he has changed his Wikipedia username a very large number of times (which doesn’t work!, it simply makes it slightly more cumbersome to track him. Right now, anyone who wants his current username can easily find it in a matter of minutes. He got involved with conflicts that had nothing to do with his career, but with an obsession of his. Long story, and it is his problem. What he is attempting to do is to attack real people (and their ideas and beliefs) while standing off, immune. Not going to work. He could easily vanish but continue to edit Wikipedia, if he avoids high-conflict pages and calling attention. But what he’s doing, changing his username, gives him the credit of high contributions. He’d have to start over. So he wants the benefit of his prior work while attempting to cover it up. Naive.

I applied ECP to the Rhine article, based on the fact that Bish actually had to revdel some of the abuse out. Also the IP is absolutely correct about Abd. He caused endless grief here for a very long time, his purpose on all Wikimedia projects is to reflect his personal idiosyncratic version of reality rather than the empirically established facts on which impartial observers agree. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy is very much a factional editor, famous as such. Guy was behind my Wikipedia “community ban”. “Endless grief” for a “very long time.” Drama? Sure. Guy was reprimanded by ArbComm in the first case filed, and William M. Connolley, following a factional agenda, I came to suspect was caused by the first case, was desysopped for blocking me. Of course, I caused all this by pointing out what they had done. Rude.

In Guy’s case, I compiled a list of his edits to articles related to cold fusion. It was neutral, it accused him of nothing, but it showed that he was not neutral and that therefore his use of admin tools was “involved,” which he was denying. So … what “impartial observers”? His friends claimed I had edited that list to make him look bad. What they were doing was assuming that the comments with each edit were mine. No, they were his. I had not touched them. His own comments made him look “bad,” or at least quite biased.

And this is obvious: he is aligning himself with the IP, as AP socks were aligned with him and his friends, before they were detected and blocked. This is all evidence of factional administration. Not my problem, I am not a Wikipedia editor, but I do watch and report, and the public is at least covering my expenses, which is far better than what happened when I was a Wikipedia editor. Being banned there was like being released from prison.

This is pretty obvious: Guy’s claims are very personal and very opinionated and have zero evidence attached. I attach evidence, generally — though not always — and that makes my comments long, and that is one of the allegedly Bad Things I do, write long comments.

According to a discussion on Wikiversity (which I leave to you all to discover), the person behind the Rhine Researcher socks has declared their intention to dispense with the kind of disruption described above. Abd, interestingly, counseled against such behavior, so hopefully there won’t be more happening over here. Unfortunately, it looks like Wikiversity continues to be used as an incubator for WP:RGW against the fringe. Don’t know why the foundation tolerates that, but there you go. jps (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, JPS is aligning with the IP and attacking Wikiversity, which has nothing to do with RGW. He shows later how clueless he is about Wikiversity. None of this has anything to do with the topic on the Noticeboard. However, he is not AP and may say things that are not pure AP agenda. He seems to be mostly clueless about AP. 

Leave a Reply