Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Abd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cold_fusion

JzG repeats arguments that he gave a year ago, and, as I found typical when I started, as a neutral editor, investigating his blacklistings and blocks and various admin actions around cold fusion, he alleges a pile of assertions that fall apart when examined and compared with what actually happened.

What's he claiming? He cites the FoF from RfAr/Cold fusion, which found that Pcarbonn had an agenda, based on an off-wiki article he wrote which, in fact, was a Wikipedia-praising piece, he was praising the reliable source policies, and what he was "pushing" was that Wikipedia follow guidelines, and the Fringe science arbitration which JzG cites as evidence of dead-horse beating actually confirmed Pcarbonn's position. But you'd never know that from what's stated on AN now by JzG and the chorus.

Pcarbonn is an expert on the topic, apparently. He may be COI, I'm not sure, but he's refrained from editing the article, he only was making suggestions on Talk. That's "advocating." And that's exactly what we want experts to do, if we want a reliable project.

There is no neutral close. I think it likely that there will be claims of canvassing because of this notice here, but ... I'm asking for neutral administrators to look at this. I hope that it is noticed that what JzG is doing, he did before, before ArbComm, and it was rejected. He's banning or attempting to ban an editor based purely on the editor's POV, based on his own very contrary and firmly established POV, which he edit warred, in the past, to maintain. JzG has a history of making spurious arguments that sound good at first, they can attract neutral editors to agree, not to mention the chorus, those who join him in his POV and crusade against "fringe."

But Pcarbonn isn't advocating fringe science, he's advocating that the article reflect what is in reliable source, with only an occasional mention of less reliable sources for background. There is, lately, a veritable deluge of mainstream media and mainstream academic publication on cold fusion, but the resident skeptics who own the article reject it all as "fringe."

The evidence that it's fringe? Well, cold fusion is fringe, right? And the articles, even if published in a mainstream publication, are about cold fusion, so the articles are fringe and the authors are fringe, because they are "advocating" cold fusion. Anybody who "advocates" cold fusion is fringe, it's a tautology. And so any editor who tries to put material in the article from these "fringe" sources, published by, say, Oxford University Press, the American Chemical Society, or Elsevier's recent Encyclopedia of Electrochemistry, is a "fringe POV-pusher," and should be banned.

It became truly and amazingly blatant. Pcarbonn, seeing the discussion and the claim of Future Perfect that he'd been banned, offered help to Dual Use, who may be an SPA also, a returning user. So ... without any guideline violations being even alleged, Dual Use was banned as well.

It is banning of a POV.

Disclosure: I was skeptical about cold fusion in January of last year, when I discovered the situation at the article. My interest was and remains consensus and neutrality, which are interlinked, and if you ban half of a dispute, you can't find neutrality. However, I did then start reading in the field and was amazed by what I found. Solid evidence for the reality of low energy nuclear reactions was in the literature as primary sources by the mid 1990s. It's now in peer-reviewed secondary sources, but you'd never know this from the Wikipedia article. Not just one secondary source. Dozens. The only reasonably clear indication of overall consensus we have is from the 2004 DoE report, which clearly showed that a massive shift had taken place since 1989, when the DoE issued a report with similar conclusions but a very different basis. The conclusion in 1989 was that more research should be done, but no big federal program, but we know from RS that this conclusion was politically forced by the Nobel Prize-winning co-chair, who insisted on it or he'd resign. There probably wouldn't have been more than two members of the committee who actually thought it worth pursuing. (Maybe about fifteen members to the committee, it's not clear)

But in 2004, half the18-member panel considered the critical excess heat claims were convincing. If you think that excess heat is not convincing, you won't think it is nuclear in origin, so I state the other major opinion as "two thirds of those who support excess heat considered that the evidence that it was nuclear was "somewhat convincing." These were experts, gathered by the DoE. They included some who were, from their comments, obviously not willing to give cold fusion a moment's thought, they thought the whole thing was fraud and shoddy work, a conclusion they came to fifteen years earlier. Since 2004, there has been a great deal of publication in the field, 2004 was roughly the nadir. There is now a torrent. In spite of what was now stated as the unanimous recommendation of the panel, the DoE didn't fund any research. But the U.S. Department of Defense has been funding it, the Italian government has been funding it, and there are many other research groups working on it, and papers are being published in much larger numbers.

I'm not advocating a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I'm suggesting that it's time to start, in an alleged fringe science topic, using the reliable sources, following reliable source guidelines, and the principles enunciated in RfAr/Fringe science, and not some pseudo-skeptical agenda to exclude this stuff. Let the article fall where it may, the article should not advocate for or against cold fusion, and should reflect the balance that's in the sources.

But if one looks, the negative sources have almost entirely disappeared, whereas the positive sources are blossoming. This isn't about free energy or the like, it's about science. Are low energy nuclear reactions possible? It was never actually theoretically impossible, and there are known examples, and all that happened in 1989, apparently, was that an unexpected mechanism was discovered. There is now substantial theoretical work that explains this using classical quantum field theory, it's not actually new physics, simply overlooked possibilities, if the theories are correct. It's still true that nobody really knows, from theory confirmed by predictions and experiment, solidly, what's happening. But that may change.... I don't have a crystal ball, either.

Posted by: gomi

[Moderator's note: deleted duplicate thread and message.]

Posted by: RMHED

JzG's a cunt, I suggest you tell him so on his talk page and stop whining here.

Posted by: Abd

I'm not whining, I'm using this forum to provide notice to a wide group of editors and administrators who might see it here. This forum includes editors on all sides, and it's entirely possible that negative comment (as to my views) will show up as a result.

I'm not going to tell JzG he's a cunt, because he's not, plus it would violate my topic ban if I told him why I was saying it, or be considered a violation, and I'd just be blocked for no good purpose, even aside from civility problems. In fact, though, I don't know what he is and don't care. I don't know JzG, I only know what he's done, which has been heavily damaging to the project, though WMC was worse. JzG was a blatant, uncivil asshole, so to speak, WMC was more polite. I prefer the former. Though WMC himself is much better than many who supported him. We are gradually getting rid of those jerks, they have certainly lost much of their power over the last year, and I played a role in that.

In fact, I don't really care about Wikipedia that much any more, the "community," that part of it that's coherent enough to act in some semi-organized way, hasn't been particularly "nice" to me. But I do care about the editors, the people who are trying to do their best or to serve the cause of a neutral encyclopedia, which is why I'm bothering at all.

Unlike too many editors here, I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." That is, banned from doing so on Wikipedia. Not here. Now, RHMED, go fuck yourself. Even though we might agree in some ways about JzG.

Posted by: RMHED

Fuck me! You really are delusional. You'd be far better off knocking on Guy's door and chinning him.

Oh and WMC is a cunt too.

Posted by: Abd

RHMED, you're clueless. If I go to JzG's talk page and "chin him," I'd be blocked in a flash, unless I have some excuse and make very nice and don't raise anything to do with the situation I described here. I "chinned" JzG long ago, warning him that he was using his tools while involved. He's not doing that any more, notice? But he's still pursuing the same agenda, using arguments he should know are bankrupt, he's used them before and they've been rejected by the community and ArbComm.

If any friends of his read this, I suggest what I suggested they do before, while I was letting the charges that became RfAr/Abd and Jzg sit for a month: give him some friendly advice. He's shooting himself in the foot, and he might win a ban himself out of it. Had his friends listened before, he might still be an admin. Might even be a good one.
Stop whining and do something about it.

Posted by: RMHED

Oh dear, you took the bait, you utterly sad desperate twat.

You really do have tunnel vision don't you.

Posted by: Hipocrite

Looks like you and your buds got F'ed in the A, Abdul.

Posted by: Abd

Oh that explains those good feelings, H. Curious. Things are working out swimmingly. Poifect. JzG is shooting himself in the foot, Future Perfect is setting himself up for some serious embarrassment, that's how it looks to me. Why don't you pop in and join the fun? It would be great to whack four or five birds with one stone.

Look, I don't like to see what JzG is doing to himself, it was sad to see WMC fall as he did. I don't actually enjoy that, though, I'll admit, there is a certain thrill. You, on the other hand, can burn in hell forever and I'll laugh, because you are hiding, JzG and WMC are and were openly themselves, and you are ... a hipocrite.

You imagine that you are winning something by seeing some editors banned. There are more coming, Hipocrite, you are pushing against a landslide. Haven't you noticed?

I hardly have to lift a finger. I swim with the tide, H., at least at this point. Sometimes I anticipate it a bit, but it comes.

By the way, what in the world was that checkuser talking about with the multiple accounts when you filed a checkuser report on Dual Use? I see that Future Perfect has misread that report, it's part of what will embarrass him when this all comes out -- unless he takes a good look and does the right thing and says "Oops!"

Any friends of Future Perfect here? A word to the wise.

Posted by: thekohser

I wonder how often Britannica has discussions like this?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Run ! You Fools !!

Posted by: RMHED

All the time, though of course they tend to be far more unpleasant.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

This is something?

Posted by: Abd

Sure. Don't imagine, though, that this is all I do. It's a small fraction. What I do is legitimate, or at least arguably so. WR is a place where I can put a comment likely to be seen by many editors and arbitrators. The extent to which I use email is more limited. WR is a place that sometimes works to call attention to these festering sores. I can't do this on-wiki because of two topic bans. It's possible that some efforts will be made to ding me for this, here, but if Arbcomm tries to sanction free speech off-wiki, it will have established itself as a true enemy, unworthy of any respect. Short of that, which I don't expect, I'm responsible for respecting AC decisions, no matter how stupid.

Posted by: dtobias

The idea that others are beating a dead horse is a trope which JzG pounds on as if it were a deceased equine itself.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Someone should really upload an audio file of a dead horse being beaten with a dead trout.

Just for fun, of course.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I take it that my company is not wanted, hmmm?

Posted by: Abd

Wouldn't that be fun to know?

Posted by: Trick cyclist

There must be some arguments on Britannica between contributors, or between editors and contributors. No doubt more civilised and better-informed than most of what passes for debate and seeking consensus, but they exist. Whatever defects Wikipedia has, article discussions are generaly in the open for the world to see. (Or are there loads on e-mails I don't know about?)

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

The world never looks at them, though.

(No, not that many mails. But many a 'consensus' comes from canvassing on IRC.)

Posted by: Abd

Sometimes Talk discussions are useful. If there has been serious contention, though, they can be ridiculous to follow. What's needed is a consensus report on why the article is the way it is. Carcharoth called this an article FAQ in the RfAr that banned me. Guess what editor would have worked on that?

Posted by: Abd

Somebody finally waved a red flag in front of JzG's nose. He rushed right off and filed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&oldid=386371184#In_passing... I've ever seen from someone with his level of experience.

But I think I've figured out his method. He just tosses as much mud as he can think of. It doesn't matter -- at all -- if there is any truth to it, it simply needs to seem like a description of a disruptive editor.

Unless editors actually follow the links and check them out carefully -- sometimes a superficial examination will confirm what he's saying, whereas a deeper one would uncover that the mine has been salted, and innocent stuff has been framed to make it look awful -- an accumulation builds, so that when he finally shows up with a ban proposal (he's not likely to personally block any more, when he's on this kind of mission), editors pile in with "Yeah, that editor has been nothing but trouble."

Because they have seen so many reports. Combine this with a faction, and it's brutal, because those reports can be, and will be, spread out a bit. And people will readily and understandably assume that someone who is getting many editors pissed off must be disruptive. Even if the actual disruption is coming from a handful of editors who focus narrowly on an area, with part of their time.

He was completely wrong about User:Abd/Sandbox. But if there is anywhere I should be able to express myself freely, it would be that page!

What would be needed to counter this tactic would be one or more editors to contradict his claims, and not just his "target." I used to do this, but I'm banned from it. (Why? Good question!) Then, whenever he files false or misleading charges, the impression falls on him, where it belongs. And, eventually, something can and will be done about it.

But if, as usually happens, that stuff just stands, even if it simply goes away into the archive, he has accomplished his goal: smearing the editor, preparing for the lynching.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

The lynching? You may be strange and you may be fruity, but you ain't strange fruit.

Posted by: Abd

It's a metaphor, Horse, referring to a mob action. I could show many examples where JzG fired up the mob with this kind of behavior. It included ArbComm, in RfAr/Cold fusion, where a substantially innocent article Pcarbonn wrote, published outside, was fanned into an impression of a "battleground mentality." I should probably write an essay on that. When Pcarbonn came back from his year ban, he was promptly assassinated -- can you handle the metaphor, Horse? -- at AN by JzG, using his classic techniques of misrepresentation.

JzG presented this as a matter of Pcarbonn pushing "the same POV as he was banned for." Wait a minute! In the case itself, there wasn't any banning of Pcarbonn for his "POV," but for "battlefield mentality." So what was Pcarbonn doing when he came back? Making piles of POV edits to the article?

No. He was writing in Talk, pointing to the sources that he knows well, since he became COI. Nothing disruptive. The sources can be seen as supporting a pro-cold fusion POV, which is where peer-reviewed RS has been going since 2005, easily.

What JzG did at AN, if anyone was watching, was promote his own anti-cold fusion POV, by arranging the ban of anyone with the knowledge and editorial skills to oppose it.

He didn't do that with me, rather, it was clear that his friends did it for him, you can look at RfC/JzG 3, where I pointed out his abusive actions as an admin, which ArbComm confirmed. Before the RfAr, in that RfC, you can see the cabal assemble to call for me to be banned. For pointing out abuse by their friend, fully and concisely documented. No, not walls of text!

So then one of their friends set it up, Hipocrite. And WMC did the first deed, declaring a ban, with an action that the community later rejected. The cabal spent his admin bit on this affair, that's how threatening they thought I was.

Was this a conscious conspiracy? Probably not. It's just the way it works.

When the cabal piled in to RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, ArbComm was overwhelmed by the traffic. Hey, if that many editors are upset by this guy, he must be disruptive. And he writes too much, I don't understand it. Off with his head!

(ArbComm rode roughshod over their own drafting arb.... Ah, well, that's ArbComm, eh?)

Posted by: thekohser

You must be new to reading the AN/I page, Abd. That one doesn't even come close.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I've got the right-sized handle for any metaphor.

Posted by: Milton Roe

A lynched horse would be strange fruit, indeed!

Nina Simone's cover of this song is even grittier. I have it on my iPod.

Posted by: Abd

Not new, but I have trouble remembering total nonsense. This particular post of JzG's, actually, isn't total nonsense except in actual content. It serves his purpose, to smear. If text serves its purpose, it isn't total nonsense.

I must admit, though, that I've not seen an AN/I report based on a user's Sandbox, though I could imagine that one could, in fact, use a Sandbox abusively. But as charged? No.

What the extremity of it did was to demonstrate his purpose, if anyone is watching. Usually nobody is, people just see a report like that in passing. Which is exactly what he wants.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Is Guy Chapman as boring in real life as he is on Wikipedia?

Posted by: Abd

Let's say I'm not eager to find out.

He just dropped a nice little revelation of the source of his POV on Cold fusion on User talk:NewYorkBrad. His friend told him that the Featured Article on Cold fusion wasn't bad. That was probably about 2006 or so, maybe earlier.

I pointed him to the review of the field published in Naturwissenschaften, http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/ The reality, to the peer reviewers, is a little different than Guy's memory of what his friend told him years ago.

I helped write that review, and Storms was kind enough to mention me.

I am so glad that I was banned on Wikipedia. Think how much time I could have wasted there! Now that I'm off the ban, indeed, I'm slogging through the shit again. It's possible to get somewhere, but I don't recommend the trip.

It was not refreshing to be reminded of how obtuse and downright vicious some of these people can be.

Posted by: Abd

And JzG has volunteered to be a speaker about the WMF!

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_speakers&diff=0&oldid=2109098

Wow, should I make sure he lets me know if he actually speaks somewhere, so I can tell all my friend in the U.K. that is is a must-attend?

JzG has, indeed, been a tireless volunteer at times, but he's also wrecked a lot. Telling editors to "Fuck off!" was an expression of "subscribing to the foundation goals"? Did he ever apologize for any of this? He's lied and distorted and sought to ban anyone who disagreed with him, thus essentially attacking the fundamental neutrality policy and the basis for consensus.

Yeah, I'd like to hear him defend "neutrality" and "consensus" given how much energy he put into attacking them. Based, in the case of cold fusion, on the opinion of his "friend," the hell with policy, reliable sources, recusal, and all that crap.

Posted by: thekohser

That wouldn't be the first time Guy Chapman couldn't be creative on his own and had to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&action=historysubmit&diff=79696189&oldid=76592206.

Posted by: Abd

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Reinstatement_of_topic_ban! His favorite expression about me used to be that I was "beating a dead horse." I don't do that. Horse, I'd never do that, I wouldn't even beat a live horse. Might offer one a carrot. Might kiss a filly. I like the fillies, I do.... especially humans.

But JzG would beat one. Here he goes with a dead one, but he has sometimes been able to convince the Wikipediots that, why, he's got a point there!

Yeah, Fringe! Yeah, Proxying! Yeah, Walls-o-Text ™! Yeah, Obviously He Hasn't Learned His Lesson! Where's the rope?

I'm sitting here wondering if I can get to play Whack-a-Mole, too! I've played the "legitimate user" side a few times, with some pretty nasty socks, but never the really fun mole side. My own rules say that I can't do that unless I'm blocked, more than, say, a week or two, illegitimately. That cancels the social contract.

Wikipedia has never seen what I'd do if not restrained. But ... I don't really know myself. It's pretty boring, that place. Kinda removed from Real Life, don't y'all think?

for later generations bored enough to read this, a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=388797302#Reinstatement_of_topic_ban

Posted by: dtobias

What about the Phillies?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Fear not, Abd...I have faith in you.

As for Guy Chapman...eh, tell him to go use a carrot as a suppository.

Posted by: Milton Roe

What about phillately? They say that womanizing, like science, is either physics or stampcollecting.

What about flatleys? Have you seen Lord of the Dunce?

Posted by: Abd

Very tempting. On what page do you suggest, and should I be logged in?

Hey, folks, IP editors, you can tell him and they will think it was me and they will waste piles of time with checkuser and all that, or they will point to Wikipedia Review as proof that I'm a disruptive troll and ... I really DGAF.

I behave on-wiki. If they kick me off, all bets are off, the contract has been cancelled. Might be more fun. Off-wiki, it's my own life, my own dime, my own time. It's the same on-wiki, but .... there is that social contract, tattered and torn as it is, with those dark stains on it from all the shit. It's getting hard to read.

Posted by: Abd

Well, I've never been much of a baseball fan, but my 9-year old daughter has taken to the Red Sox, so ... I've noticed myself starting to listen to the radio. It would be the Red Sox, of course, not the Phillies. My daughter would be horrified by anything else.

Now, about that Guy. Where were we? We've got, in the lineup, not only JzG, but also Hipocrite and ScienceApologist. Enric Naval may or may not duck. This could be fun.

Last Chance.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Well aren't you the bearer of Bad News Bears.

Posted by: tarantino

You mean Hipocrite,
JBKramer
DepartedUser
PouponOnToast
LegitAltAccount
Archfailure
Throwawayarb
MusingsOfAPrivateNature
MOASPN
CManW
Semiprivatemusings
Salmon of Doubt
64.95.38.193
63.85.198.113
32.141.254.27
32.139.65.55
32.139.106.170
32.142.56.176
32.136.61.1
32.142.72.230
32.141.138.133
32.139.193.65
32.136.157.224
32.136.92.97
32.136.216.22
etc.

Why do they allow him continue to participate?

Posted by: Abd

Yeah, I'm afraid. If it weren't for me, JzG and Hipocrite and ScienceApologist would be productive editors, instead of wasting their time exposing my POV-pushing, my "proxying" for Jed Rothwell, and my general tendency to cause the servers to crash by posting tomes on Talk pages.

I've probably caused the last dozen crashes all by myself. It isn't me, directly, it's when so many editors throw up on their keyboards when they see these tomes, which make them violently ill. It shorts out the keys and causes a flood of random data to come in. JzG and Hipocrite have been valiantly trying to stop this for more than a year now. And all they are getting is flak from Wikipedia Review and other ignoramuses. Is it like this:

Why, just today, a stupid administrator on meta granted Abd's request to take that notorious Fringe spamsite, lenr-canr.org, full of ALTERED DOCUMENTS, COPYVIO, and complete nonsense, off the global blacklist, which had been the only protection against a FLOOD of spam from these FANATICS.

Abd made the preposterous argument that there had been no spam. Why, I presented evidence, with the original blacklisting, showing this BANNED EDITOR JED ROTHWELL had made some IP edits with FRINGE NONSENSE on Talk:Cold fusion in which he signed "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org." How could we possibly allow this SHAMELESS PROMOTION?

Abd also showed a link to that notorious leak in the scientific dike, Naturwissenschaften, where some idiot had linked, on the first page of the September issue, to the very web site, this FRINGE lenr-canr.org, of the publisher who owns the copyright to so much of the content that lenr-canr.org publishes. They are promoting their own violator! STUPID IDIOTS!

But it's easy to understand. The cabal behind cold fusion had arranged for that notorious nut case and lunatic, so-called "Doctor" Edmund Storms, to be on the editorial board of NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, the aforementioned BIOLOGY journal, and rumors that this is actually a "multidisciplinary journal" are scurrilous attempts to distract from what anyone can immediately verify: this is in the "Medical and Life Sciences" category, not "Physics," and don't believe what Springer-Verlag says, their web site has been hacked by the aforementioned EDMUND STORMS.

This latest delisting at meta is simply the result of Abd OVERWHELMING poor Beetstra with WALLS OF TEXT, and this is exactly why ABD should be BANNED for GOOD. Beetstra, afflicted with a splitting headache, just delisted to get ABD to go away, just as he whitelisted pages a year ago from this NOTORIOUS SPAMMER Jed Rothwell, Just to get Abd to go away.

Suggestions that I have gone overboard in my so-called CAMPAIGN against ABD are coming only from TROLLS, unable to forgive me for ALL MY WORK keeping the FRINGE FUCKERS from filling Wikipedia with their SHIT. Arbcomm was completely unable to understand how IMPORTANT my work has been, the trolls were ABLE TO DECEIVE ARBCOMM into thinking that my telling the fuckers to FUCK OFF was uncivil, when it was just a sober, sensible, if BOLD response to their CRAP.

I know that COLD FUSION is completely BOGUS because my FRIEND, a REAL SCIENTIST, told me years ago that the Wikipedia article was FINE. It was a FEATURED ARTICLE then, until Abd got ahold of it.

What? He was banned for a year and hasn't made any controversial edits to the article for a long time? HAH! That's what you think! He has legions of SOCK PUPPETS doing his BIDDING. He's tricked everyone. And I am the last bastion against this WAVE OF FRINGE NONSENSE.

I'm storing up supplies. It's going to be a long winter, I need to be ready, and I've stuffed the underside of my bed with crumpled-up newspapers to KEEP THE SOCK PUPPETS AWAY.

GET AWAY FROM MY KEYBOARD! NO! PUT THAT NEEDLE AWAY! WHITE COAT? I DON'T LIKE WHITE! HEY! YOU ARE PUTTING THAT ON BACKWARDS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I HAVE IMPORTANT WORK TO DO, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT>

Posted by: Abd

JzG is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=398836869&oldid=398756375 On the Case] re Cold fusion

Let's see, by ArbComm (instigated by JzG) Pcarbonn was topic banned in December, 2008. I was topic banned (instigated by the cabal, especially WMC) in June, 2009. Pcarbonn came off his topic ban in December 2009, but behaved as COI, and was still banned by the community anyway, instigation of JzG, made no significant edits to the article.

I came off my topic ban in September, 2010, but also behaved as COI, no controversial edits remained in the article, anything I'd changed of any note was reverted (even where I expected it to be non-controversial, like linking to the Wikiversity resource, which should be normal, as a place where people may work on educational materials or participate in interactive education). I was banned under "discretionary sanctions" by an idiot admin who thought my request on meta to delist lenr-canr.org was adequate as grounds for a ban. Even though the request was granted. And since I haven't appealed that, the pseudoskeptics (see Pseudoskeptic) remain firmly in charge. Nobody left has the wikiskills to ask for discretionary sanctions against obvious, blatant, POV-pushing going on by the cabal editors.

The pseudoskeptics have had almost free reign with the article since December, 2008, with only a brief period in early 2009 where I added some material -- only a little, the least controversial of what might have been added. What is left of that is practically unrecognizable, anything with any meat has been cut out.

But JzG wants to blame me and Pcarbonn for the mess? In fact, the current attempt to bring some sanity to the article, by Uva Ursa, is based on the total dominance of recent peer-reviewed mainstream secondary sources by reviews that accept the basic cold fusion phenomena as established scientific fact. The extreme skeptical position, pushed by JzG and ScienceApologist, is utterly missing from the literature, except for one recent letter by Kirk shanahan (T-C-L-K-R-D) , clearly treated as a fringe opinion by the editors of the journal. Except for the immediate response by researchers copublished with that letter, Shanahan has been almost completely ignored. By everyone.

The pseudoskeptics explain away the total imbalance by claiming that nobody in their right mind would bother even discussing cold fusion, but ... that's not what the sources say, that is not the position the U.S. Department of Energy showed in 2004, in a source which the article accepts only in a misleading summary that implies total dismissal when the actual source review shows practically the opposite.

The position of ScienceApologist, which Wikipedia is fostering and encouraging, by allowing the ban of every expert in the field who has made an attempt to help, is that any author who has anything to do with cold fusion research is ipso facto "biased" and whatever they write is to be excluded. This is a blatant denial of Wikipedia RS guidelines, which depend on publishers, especially mainstream publishers, to filter out fringe.

Bottom line, since 2005, there have been about sixteen secondary source reviews of cold fusion in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. None of them are negative. The latest is authoritative, prominently featured in the "flagship multidisciplinary journal", Naturwissenschaften," founded in 1913, published by Springer-Verlag (founded in 1842, the largest book publisher and second-largest journal publisher in the world):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/. It looks like someone paid Springer the $3000 it takes to get them to openly release an article, even though the preprint was already available at lenr-canr.org.

The arguments against that as a reliable source were rejected at RSN, but that means nothing if nobody is left to use it and if the editors sitting on the article will reject anything with any BS they can think up.

And I got tired of appealing to ArbComm and getting the usual advice to stuff a sock in it, content dispute, don't write so much and just Go Away, and finding no support from the community. (To be sure, some of my support was also banned by cabal action, this was before the Climate Change arbitration made some tiny steps toward sanity. And arbitrators who might have been inclined to hear me out recused from handling my issues.... that's a bit of a structural defect! If you filter out anyone who will consider one side of a case, what's left? I didn't see the arbitrators who were inclined to throw the book at me recusing....)

But JzG is beginning to piss me off. Maybe I'll file something, if anyone gives me a whisper of support. Otherwise, forget about it. I don't care enough. This idea that people in a field regarded as fringe are desperate, DESPERATE, I tell you, to get Wikipedia to promote their field, is a total fantasy. It's one more of the arguments by the pseudoskeptics. I know the experts in cold fusion, now, many of them personally. They don't care at all about Wikipedia, they think it's preposterous, and of no consequence. Surprisingly, they have focused on research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Like, duh!