One might think so. However, experts sometimes are only expert in a different field. Cold fusion. What qualifications should an expert have? Should the expert know the current literature?

Why should we prefer the view of one expert over the view of the peer reviewers who accept this alleged "nonsensical fringe theory"? Sure, an isolated paper means little. But a thousand? And peer-reviewed secondary source? And the "expert" somehow can't come up with any similar reliable source, but just demands, "Trust me"?

What we forget is that experts are often specialized, and may not know a field that is not their specialty. They might be, in some sense, in a better position to understand a topic, but the proper role for experts is to advise the editors, not to be editors. Experts may edit, but allowing editors experts to edit tendentiously puts them into conflict which they should avoid. Experts may have POVs that do not represent the best thinking in a field. Experts disagree with each other, so which experts do we prefer? The ones whose opinion we think correct?

But that's circular; by selecting the experts we simply select our own opinion!

If we want to retain editors, we must respect them and protect them, which ultimately requires establishing their expertise and channeling it into good advice, clear explanation. In the article, if it works without triggering conflict, in Talk if not. Blocking experts for "too much" Talk, and I've seen it done, is a lousy idea.

I'd say that anyone who claims to be an expert should be considered COI, not in a strict way that would require experts to, say, abstain from creating articles in their field, but to prevent conflicts between experts or experts and others from turning into edit warring. If an expert can't convince ordinary editors with explanations in discussion, why would we think the article text will be any better?

If we do this, we don't have to vet experts, though it's still a good idea. We don't give them control, the opposite: if you are an expert, you are a valued advisor. Show us the sources, please, and explain how the text you recommend is true to them, correct our misunderstandings with clear explanations and read our article text and make sure it is accurate by patiently pointing out any errors. Act like a professional.

Funny, ScienceApologist is a particle physicist, apparently. From working with him on one article, Oppenhiemer-Phillips process (T-H-L-K-D), I'd say he probably is, certainly relevant to me, in his field, an expert. He was banned from Cold fusion because it's considered a fringe science topic, but he wasn't banned from Talk. What I wonder is why he didn't participate in the discussions? Why didn't he advise us? I can tell you, I'm sure it would have been much better than what I faced as it was, I was dealing with Enric Naval, who didn't know the difference between a nucleus or atom and a molecule, and who showed many times that he had no clue about basic scientific concepts, but he was absolutely convinced that I was clueless, deluded by those cold fusion fanatics.

Right. The peer reviewers at Naturwissenschaften (T-H-L-K-D) and those wild-eyed fanatics, the American Chemical Society (T-H-L-K-D) and Oxford University Press (T-H-L-K-D).

That should be in big block capitals, somewhere prominent. It's pretty easy to become "an expert" on the Zulus, for instance, but how much of Zulu history would a generalist "expert on African history and culture" be an expert in? Experts have to disagree, that's how they keep their academic tenures, those that are academics anyway.

Well, the most dangerous edit warriors weren't touched by the decision. So I don't see any reason for delay.
I agree that it was a good result, but probably for different reasons. I'm 65, but I have two small children who have been deprived of my company for too much time, and I need to do some work that makes money, Wikipedia won't ever do that, unless maybe I can take up a collection. mmmm.... that's an idea! Thanks, Mathsci, you've been quite useful.
Nah, I'd rather make some money. Do you think I won't, Mathsci? Why? You think I don't know the market? What?

The plan seems to be forming to make an experimental kit that idiot-proofs the known protocol that produces the pitting of CR-39 radiation detector chips, interpreted in quite a few peer-reviewed papers as showing charged particle radiation from codeposition cells, i.e., electrodeposited palladium deuteride, and already the subject of a multiple-experimenter replication called the "Galileo Project," which was successful, with both amateurs and professionals. Very preliminary cost estimates would be $50 per cell, and possibly a few hundred dollars to rent the power supply and instrumentation, or a few thousand to buy it. I think there are a lot of people who would pay that to see this for themselves, and with cell costs low, there will also be attempts to figure out how we have managed to fake the radiation. In other words, Mathsci, we will sell to skeptics as well as "believers."

Further, the existence of a standard replicable experiment will allow much more rapid and widespread testing of experimental variations; the work in the field has been hampered by the lack of a standard baseline for comparison of results.

In fact, perhaps what will happen is that someone will be able to show why we should be disregarding the SPAWAR (T-H-L-K-D) results, why this whole Cold fusion thing is bogus, something that has eluded the scientific community, which never found a smoking gun with the basic Fleischmann findings, only with his famous neutron error. Only low levels of neutrons are found, we now know; one of the challenges we might take on is to make the neutron findings reliably reproducible. It's more difficult than charged particle radiation because the levels are so low.
"Provoked?" Sure.The bully stands over you on the yard and says, "If you move, I'll kick you." Everyone stands around like nothing is happening. Deciding that living as a slave to the bully is worse than being kicked, you move and he kicks you. You shouldn't have provoked him, eh?

WMC had been doing shit for years, being protected by his friends; he mostly stayed away from making mistakes like blocking administrators, but he was willing to wheel-war if he sensed that the admin wouldn't take it up the ladder. All I did was stand up, and his habits were more powerful than his prudence, if he cared.

I'm not sure that he cared. Admins burn out and start to find ways to escape. One of the ways they go is to become more and more outrageous.
There was no Cab involved in that case, AFAIK.

Hey, Mathsci, I got a spiffy barnstar from PHG a few days ago! You may not realize it, but there are a lot of editors who are grateful for stuff I did, they will remember me and I them. But I'm on to something better now, I suspect.

From what it looks like, WMC thinks he shits roses and everyone who does not cater to him or defies him is some lower life-form. I love it when these arrogant types get their comeuppance. It would be great for him to tank his rfa if he tries again. Any bets that he'll revert those who oppose him?

What I find amusing is all these people, like Billy here, who just love the arbcom when it takes their side, who will ridicule and dismiss the people who complain about the, well, kangaroo-ness of the court, but who, when they find themselves on the other side, suddenly start whining about their treatment and due process and fairness and what not.

As an aside, what's up with these guys from Britain? There's David Gerard, the king of pricks; there's JzG, and Billy boy. What they say is not really unreasonable, and I might tend to agree with a fair bit of it, but the manner in which they say it is very arrogant and generally jackass-ish. They're not really doing the causes they support any favors (kinda funny since David Gerard is a spokesman for Wikipedia ). Must be the climate down there or something...

Now, now. I'm sure if we were to break out the geographic locations of all the jerks in Wikipedia it would be equally spread-out across the English-speaking world.

I recommended that you find something completely different to edit on wikipedia in 3 months time. Why not?

I agree that PHG has good manners and knew about the barnstar, Probably not wise to read too much into it. In his case, looking at his edit history, I pointed out during the ArbCom case that weaponry and military history were his fortes. That seems to be the way he has gone.

I don't buy any of the Cabal stuff - it's way past its sell-by date. After your case was opened, MastCell was the main person I asked for advice.

Well, Abd says himself he'd have a COI, so he'd have to one way or another anyway--if he keeps editing.

Oh, and PHG is a good guy. He really impressed me.

In a way, I would like him to elaborate Mongol alliance-type theories in other places. Those stories capture the imagination; they would make for better movies and novels--the Knights Templar fighting side-by-side with Khanate Mongol warriors to repel Muslims from the Holy Land . God, what a beautiful story. It's almost ashamed that they're the minority views among historians (or at least English-speaking historians).

The whole world! Don't forget Enric Naval!

Why not? Have you been paying any attention? Do you think I need more "hobbies," as JzG described editing Wikipedia. He did finally blame me for his wikibreak. He's back, now that I'm safely out of the way for a while.
What you don't know is the work I did to ameliorate the damage from the PHG case.]
You weren't asked to buy it. I asked ArbComm to please rule on the substance, because if TINC, as I defined it -- which, contrary to some Arbs, was perfectly ordinary English usage, and which is, of course, quite how the word is used here with nobody going "Huh?" -- I should have been indef'd, please, so that none of us keep wasting our time. If I was pissing off so many uninvolved editors, prima facie evidence, summary judgment could have been made immediately.

That's all "cabal" meant, that these editors were reasonably considered involved, not by virtue of specific article content, but by virtue of policy position, oft-expressed, leading to prejudice on specific cases. JzG sees his chance to get back, he thinks:

MfD/Cabal.
I WP:DGAF (T-H-L-K-D)
Appropriate. Arseholes should be mentored by assholes, or vice-versa.

MastCell trolls, I wasted a lot of time in conversation with him, leading me on, making me think that he was actually interested. It was like EdChem, who pooped in at the last minute. Supposedly an expert, but utterly useless.

I realized that ScienceApologist, who had been tendentious upon tendentious, was not banned from Cold fusion talk, he could have contributed. It would have been much better. Big problem at that page was I was dealing with editors who were utterly ignorant and who didn't want to know anything. SA, at least, did know traditional nuclear physics, I suspect that a real conversation would have been possible.

Mathsci, I made quite a few statements about the mathematics of quantum mechanics vs that of quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics. You never made any comments about that. Do you actually know anything about the topic?

COI editors may edit Talk pages. In fact, Wikipedia should have more COI editors advising on Talk, and it should be welcomed.
Definitely wrote beautiful articles, the best I've seen. Good example of how Wikipedia breaks down, is murder on writers. It's amazing that he kept on, given how much abuse was heaped on him.
Minority views belong in the project. WP:UNDUE has been misused, it should not prevent the creation of articles or sections on minority views, which are then the subject; all that is needed is to make clear that the article is on a minority or fringe topic, not generally accepted, with reference to the majority view, and then the article or section should be free to explore what is in reliable source. If there is more source on the minority view than the alleged mainstream view, we should suspect the classification as fringe.

Cold fusion has been called, I just saw it again, the "scientific fiasco of the twentieth century." It's that big, yet MastCell complained that we devote over 70kb to the topic. Fiasco? Really? What happened?

Enric Naval likes to point to Simon's Undead Science. I recommended to him long ago that he actually buy the book and read it, it's excellent. Enric searches for "pathological science" and finds it in the book and uses that, but the book actually details WTF happened, and "pathological science" is Simon's description of how the nuclear physicists very successfully framed the topic. (They were not disinterested and neutral, foundation assumptions of their profession were at stake, and hundreds of millions of dollars a year in hot fusion research funding.) Cold fusion was considered dead. But it didn't lie nicely and neatly in its grave, because it was never actually buried by solid evidence, it was buried by inference and innuendo and then by active repression and persecution of researchers, which Simon also covers. "Undead" means both dead and alive. Good metaphor for how the article should cover cold fusion. MastCell interpreted the duality of the article as POVs warring with each other, this part supposedly was the negative POV, that part was the positive POV, but he was only partially correct, and the text itself wasn't POV, for the most part. The basis for a positive POV, as such, was and still is entirely excluded, the peer-reviewed and secondary source evidence was disallowed, so the only thing we knew from the articles was that some researcher persisted in spite of the obvious stupidity of doing so.

The article is schizophrenic because the sources are. However, if we exclude media and tertiary sources or other off-hand sources, and only look at the "golden" sources, peer-reviewed secondary source, the evidence is entirely on the positive side or neutral. Cold fusion has been a problem article because of this unusual dichotomy. During the case, an IP asked about secondary sources, and was given a highly inadequate response. There is lots of secondary source. My "provocative" edit pointed to some, including pointing to Talk page discussions. During the case, RSN was asked about the ACS Sourcebook, and Enric Naval's response there is typical. Dismissal of clearly reliable (as defined in the guideline) source based on piles of inference and anachronism (i.e., the idea that recent peer-reviewed secondary source "contradicts" older sources, when, in fact, it integrates them.)

Wikipedia articles should also link to more open fora where original research, etc., is allowed. Used to be more of that, and it was highly useful to me, personally. Sites which were the best on the internet, such as lowcarber.net, could once be found as external links from the Wikipedia article. Gone due to rigid interpretations of policy, leading to a great decline in actual article usefullness, a loss of depth. Lowcarber.net? The site has, horrors, advertising on it. In addition to news and comment from world-class experts. That was my first sighting of Wikipedia administrators. Breeze in, make snap judgment, damage the article, then disappear. "Uninvolved" may have been worse than "involved!" At least those who are involved understand the issues!

The system fails because of this problem. The solution is actually obvious to those who understand real consensus process. When that process was actually pursued, related to Cold fusion, consensus was found and was stable. But consensus process often takes lots of discussion. With a skilled facilitator, it can take less. The biggest error promoted by the Cab is the claim that finding expanded consensus will waste everyone's time with endless circular argument. However, missed in this is that there are, in theory, many editors with the majority POV. It only takes two editors to find consensus, if one is from one side and one from the other. And then the one from each side takes the consensus back to their "caucus," so to speak. Small-scale discussions. "Endless circular argument" is what happens when (1) there are many editors chiming in, and/or (2) there is no neutral facilitator, or at least someone who cares about neutrality and will function to promote consensus. So three become involved in the process. I demonstrated it in one case. Perhaps I'll document all this. Finding consensus is not as difficult as claimed, but Wikipedia doesn't do it except rarely. Usually community process is about finding who is right and who is wrong; it commonly determines right/wrong or wrong/wrong, but not so often right/right, when, in fact, the latter is probably the reality when one digs deeply enough.

To the victor, the spoils.

Hipocrite is back, now that I'm banned, and blanked the evidence page which is under MfD. My ban was his original goal, so, indeed, he does consider himself the victor. His wikibreak was effective at avoiding major attention, I tried to make him a party, and WMC edit warred to keep him off the list, and edit warred to remove the notification from Talk:Hipocrite.

The issue really isn't the blanking, that is merely stupid -- why isn't WMC's attack page blanked? The cabal page isn't an attack page, it was evidence presented before ArbComm, and only shows involvement, for the most part, not reprehensible action in itself.

Rather it's that edit summary, which definitely shows what was going on, I had only indirect evidence before.

Hipocrite also showed up and made an attack edit to the RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley Proposed decision talk page, shortly before close, and he's now busy closing a discussion at AN/I and generally getting into mischief.

Hipocrite also apologized to WMC for "getting [him] involved in the situation." hmm..... maybe there is the other kind of cabal, too.... There was some kind of communication with WMC by "the deniable channel of email," when he first banned me, see this discussion on WMC talk.

Abd's cabal page has been blanked by CHL.

It appears Billy-boy is fast becoming just another disgruntled arbcom troll. It's all fun and games until you get sanctioned I suppose. I wonder how long before his first block?

If by this nickname you mean Dr. Connolley, he has already been blocked on several occasions.

That unblock of Sept. 11 was weird. It's the kind of wheel-warring that gets sysops desysopped. The allegedly involved admin had reverted what seemed to be a BLP violation that WMC was insisting on, no prior edits.

Maybe. But didn't these same editors claim that WMC wasn't involved even though he made edits?

WMC revert warred with an administrator over a BLP issue. Shoirt Brigade Harvester Boris was immediately at AN, and there was no conclusion there, just a few comments, WMC was unblocked within 43 minutes, unblock refers to an alleged "consensus."

History of the article

Archived AN discussion

This could be a nifty ArbComm case. However, I don't expect it. MastCell gave a truly beautiful argument against the block. It was only the fourth block issued by the admin in several years as an admin. Therefore the admin was inexperienced. QED. We prefer blocks by admins who block every day, they will clearly know how to do it better.

Cla68 later apologized for quickly agreeing that the admin was involved. (The admin had responded to a complaint on the BLP noticeboard, this was a purely uninvolved administrator, unless there is something not disclosed!)

If WMC keeps getting into trouble, and he's been aggressive as hell, this incident can and will be used against him. At ArbComm, he'd be toast on this. All the Cab's horses and all the Cab's men couldn't put him together again.

I could give him some advice. It can seem like you've won, you got away with it, but if you've pissed off the arbitrators by calling them fools and their arguments and decisions "rubbish," it tends to, shall we say, influence their future decisions, and they are not obligated to recuse.

So ... how long will it take?

It has nothing to do with coming from Britain. They are just pricks and they are found in every country. Besides which David Gerard is from Australia.

There are many excellent British editors, such as Charles Matthews and Alison Wheeler.

Is Connolley still an admin? I haven't followed his saga closely, but I've seen enough of his work to know that he really deserves a shot at next year's Wikipedia Review WP:DICK of Distinction Awards Pageant, and to take the top honors he would need to be an admin, unless we change the policy.

WMC is no longer an admin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...lley_desysopped

Abd now seems to have disappeared from WP as of Jan 1st - a New Year's resolution?

He attempted to involve himself in the declined Climate Change RfAr by every means possible. He even tried to nobble Tedder as a last resort. Screaming "vendetta" as a final flourish, he obtained a freshly penned clarification of his editing restrictions that might keep him out of trouble.

Poor Abd - first the jamjars in the kitchen, now this. Where will it all end?

I wish. But not. Travelling, without a computer other than my iPhone, meeting a woman, proposing marriage and being accepted. Yes, it's a tough life, but somebody has to do it. I won't mention the details. Let's say that what happened in the last week was a lot more fun than Wikipedia.
Nobble? What's that? I asked Tedder to name me as a party. Was something wrong with that? What?

Every means? No, I know how I could have directly involved myself. Still might do it, except that I'm finding it difficult to actually give a shit. After all, it's Wikipedia.

Mathsci, to quote from a popular radio personality here, "YOU ARE AN IDIOT." But I didn't actually scream that, any more than I screamed "vendetta" as Mathsci claims below. Rather, it's said like this:

y o u__a r e__a n__ i d i o t.

Imagine it sung in four tones; using the major scale, the first three words are 5 3 6 and the three syllables of "idiot" are 5 5 3.

It's a traditional melody used for such occasions.

I wasn't aware that I could scream in plaintext. If Mathsci doesn't understand what "vendetta" was about, he might ask himself why he bothered objecting to a harmless comment more or less following the majority opinion among those supporting the RfAr filing. That didn't mention him. And which RfAr wasn't about an area where he'd edited.

And why, indeed, did he come here to crow about this?

Contrary to Mathsci's on-wiki ignorant assertions, I was quite involved with the situation that the RfAr was about, over a longer period of time than Cold fusion, in fact. WMC's position with respect to me arose out of my successful intervention with RfC/GoRight (filed by Raul654 and WMC, and had I not intervened, GoRight would almost certainly have been banned), which made me aware of the problem at Global warming; and I did work on the article for a time, doing the usual, that is, attempting, with mixed success, to negotiate consensus. WMC was by no means the worst editor there, he was actually somewhat tractable. But, of course, he used his tools to support his POV. Naughty, naughty.

Mathsci, you might take a moment to consider that you helped arrange WMC's loss of his admin privileges. That's what false friends do, appear to support their friends when they are sawing off the tree limb they are sitting on.

So, having substantial experience, both with the Climate Change article field and with the cabal that has been maintaining that set of articles (still can't use the word on-wiki, even though that's quite an appropriate English term, in spite of ArbComm's lunatic denial), I made a *brief* comment. Which, when Mathsci "reminded" me on my Talk page was supposedly a violation of my MYOB sanction, touched off a whole series of silly disruptions. So I went to ArbComm for clarification, and they obliged.

Or, rather, they partially obliged. I had been prohibited from commenting in disputes where I was not an originating party, unless it had been approved by my mentor. But the mentorship provisions in the arbitration failed. Now, "originating party" is language normally applicable only to ArbComm itself; did I have any history of "interfering" with arbitrations I did not file or wasn't a named party? I did comment in a number of RfArs, and the decisions generally followed my suggestions, and there weren't any allegations that the comments had been disruptive. So what did "originating party" mean, since I suspect that the remedy wasn't based on ArbComm cases. And where I had supposedly been disruptive, I had been an originating party.

ArbComm didn't address the questions I raised, other than to remove the mentor approval clause, thus making it into what FloNight had apparently wanted: a total ban on meddling, where I was neutral. That is actually where I'd been most effective. But was it intended to prevent me from commenting in a case where I was already involved? Strange, if so.

Note that the ban would not prevent me from filing an arbitration directly. I would then be an "originating party," and clearly. I asked for clarification, for ArbComm to state the intention of the remedy. What prior disruptive behavior was it based on? Without knowing the cause, I can only speculate as to the intention. The remedy wasn't supported by any findings of fact related to it.

I'm not trying to wikilawyer, I truly prefer that ArbComm state explicitly the purpose and I presume that it must be based on prior behavior. Wordiness? But, then, my recent comment wasn't wordy, and the responses of Mathsci and others were far wordier.

The Request for Clarification was a bit wordy, but, of course, that didn't violate my ban.

Yes, I'm capable of speculating about the purpose, but my conclusions, if not contradicted, lead me to consider ArbComm, or the ArbComm majority, an enemy of the wiki, that is, an enemy of what is necessary for Wikipedia to be what it claims to be, neutral. Neutrality requires consensus, there is no other measure of it.
I don't know where it will "all" end, Mathsci, but I do know where you will end. I hope you enjoy it, but it might be difficult.

Jamjars in the kitchen, first? No, I started, in anything relevant to Mathsci and WR, as a Wikipedia editor interested in neutrality and consensus process and what it requires, such as facilitation and support of civil process by uninvolved administrators. That led me to an abusive blacklisting, by JzG. That eventually led to ArbComm reprimanding JzG and eventually to JzG resigning his adminship. The blacklisting also led me to the article involved, Cold fusion, and when I researched the reliable sources, I found that people like Mathsci were essentially arrogant ignoramuses, assuming that they know an experimental field without actually reading the literature in it. Fusion? Nobody really knows. But Chemistry? Well, the chemists say no, and they do make a very good case for nuclear reactions at low apparent temperatures, with solid evidence, now published in peer reviewed journals, not just one article but hundreds of articles, and not just one peer-reviewed secondary source, but dozens or more, with mainstream publishers, and negative publications have practically vanished. Real print encyclopedia articles are now covering the field as established. And I could go on and on.

There are jamjars in my kitchen, but they have nothing to do with cold fusion. They are used for jam. I do have a case of acrylic boxes, the same boxes used by the SPAWAR group for an experiment that generates neutrons at room temperature. And my kitchen cupboard has in it platinum wire, gold wire, palladium chloride, lithium chloride, and a kilogram of deuterium oxide, heavy water. I have three kinds of solid state nuclear track detectors, the sodium hydroxide to develop them with, piezoelectric transducers, thermocouples, a dual power supply, a digital storage oscilloscope I'd have given my eye teeth for twenty years ago, more datalogging capacity than I'll need, and a beautiful little digital microscope, totally cool.

I have everything I need, not only to replicate a published experiment, but to allow about forty exact replications before I need to replenish anything. Right now, I'm characterizing a cheap nuclear track detector option before proceeding, using an Am-241 alpha emitter source.

And a Wikipedia editor, a scientist, offered a substantial donation and no-interest loan. I'm actually only out a little cash, amazingly little. And I have no doubt that I'll sell kits. Even to skeptics, and, in fact, I'll give a retroactive discount to anyone who publishes their results. Positive or negative. I'll certainly publish mine, though not necessarily under peer review, it might be informal. But some of my customers will be grad students who will be intending (and supported by their professors) to publish in established journals. That's what the professors tell me.

Mathsci, your old world is dying, get out of the doorway if you can't lend a hand. The world has moved on.

Well, I know where we won't be holding our annual Wikipedia Review impromptu cookie party, then.

Do you at least have some ITK Raw Energy Bars lying around? I don't think they contain any deuterium, but you know, if you're interested in alternative energy sources.


So your kitchen cupboard is actually a refrigerator?

I'm willing to bet you anything you like they contain some deuterium. They contain water and carbohydrates, right? So they must have loads of hydrogen atoms, right? And a proportion of hydrogen atoms will be deuterium atoms, right?

WARNING: TOME FOLLOWS
Yes. Unless water has been subjected to deuterium separation processes, the hydrogen it will be somewhere between 0.01% to 0.1% deuterium, the stable heavy isotope. As I write, I'm listening to an interview of Michael McKubre and Irving Dardik.

Groks Science Show

Further fallout, so to speak, currently active: a current AN report (permanent link) was filed by JzG, who long used his tools in support of the skeptical position on cold fusion and in violation of policy and guidelines. A year ago December, he convinced ArbComm that Pcarbonn had a POV agenda and was treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and PCarbonn was topic banned for a year, which expired last month. In fact, Pcarbonn was, like quite a few others, aware of the gap between what's in the best sources for science articles (peer-reviewed and academic publications, and especially reviewed secondary sources) and what was (until recently) common in media and tertiary sources, and so, with an interest in the field, he began working on the article to make it conform to guidelines. Ultimately, he was sanctioned, quite clearly, because of his openly expressed POV, as noted in a publication off-wiki, not because he had edited contrary to behavioral guidelines. The current AN report displays the POV of JzG (the POV that got him into trouble before) and shows a list of familiar editors who have voted for a ban extension without any allegation of actual behavioral violations, and, in fact, it's certain skeptical editors who have long been violating guidelines. ArbComm did recognize, in looking at my case, that there was a problem, hence the remedy of discretionary sanctions for the Cold fusion article. But without the participation of editors who understand the issues, who have become expert in the topic, nobody knows to even ask for warnings or sanctions. I've been watching egregious behavior since I was site-banned for three months in September.

I'll note that any actual expert in a field will be automatically banned, according to the thinking of the editors voting for a ban extension, (Horrors! An SPA!), instead of being, perhaps, considered COI and advised to confine participation to making suggestions in Talk, if there is a problem with tendentious article editing. Preventing people with a POV from advocating it in Talk, even if they remain civil and otherwise cooperative, is guaranteed to perpetuate lack of neutrality in any field requiring substantial familiarity to understand the issues.)

Before he even began editing again, PCarbonn was warned by Hipocrite, the most egregiously contentious of the cabal editors. ("Cabal" refers to a group of editors I assert are mutually involved over a set of articles, and they are generally related to the well-known Global Warming cabal as well as covering other anti-pseudoscience and popular majority POV science topics. "Cabal" does not refer to clandestine collaboration, necessarily, nor is "membership" in a cabal intrinsically reprehensible. The term is about the effect of a clique, a POV faction, that acts consistently in applying POV pressure, and "POV" here can refer to policy approaches as well as to real-world disputes.)

I have advised PCarbonn that the most useful outcome of the AN report, politically, will be that his topic ban is renewed by a set of involved editors, providing him with a ready-made RfAr. Whether he will go there or not will, of course, be up to him. He's not highly motivated. The WP meatgrinder tends to result in that. But he's got nothing to lose, being unattached, and a new RfAr on this would likely focus on cabal behavior (probably without that prohibited word), which has only survived because of the common WP inattention. WMC was not the only editor who was outrageous during my RfAr, Enric Naval edit warred with an administrator and others to remove an innocent comment of mine to Talk Cold Fusion at a point where I wasn't actually banned any more.

(The guideline violation by the cabal is that material from reliable sources is being rejected solely on the basis that it is "fringe," but, while I would be unable to quibble with the claim that Cold fusion was fringe in 1990 - 1995 or so, or even substantially later, by 2004 it is easy to show from reliable source -- a source accepted by the skeptics, the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review -- it had moved into an emerging science category, with experts being about evenly divided. Mainstream publication rates have gone way up since then, with major results being announced and confirmed, the mainstream media began to "get it" in 2009, and there is an Elsevier electrochemistry encyclopedia article on the topic that treats the field as established (just published), and I could go on and on. Further, RfAr Fringe science established that reliably sourced material should not be excluded merely because it seems to support a fringe view, nor because the author is asserted to be a fringe advocate. And that's been going on for much longer than my involvement or knowledge.)

ArbComm, in finding that I'd been a tendentious editor, cited evidence provided by Enric Naval which didn't refer to my edits at all. It was a reference to evidence that he'd presented to ArbComm in RfAr/Fringe science, essentially arguing against what ArbComm eventually concluded. I pointed this out, repeatedly, during the RfAr; did any arbitrator notice? No that they showed! I think they misread it and thought that I'd claimed what was, in fact, Enric Naval's claim.

(Enric Naval misrepresents a source in the evidence mentioned, citing a statistic of 353 papers out of 1380 from a list provided by a "researcher," which is a bit misleading itself, the compiler is not a researcher in the field but a skeptical electrochemist. The implication is that 353 papers were classified as positive, which is true. However, the further implication is that the rest of the papers were negative, which is false. There were 234 papers classified as negative, so positive papers, collected by a skeptic, outweighed -- in quantity -- negative. Further, the rest of the papers were classified as neutral, which simply means that they came to no conclusion as to the explanation of the results; many papers which showed support for the positive position were classified as neutral. What Enric Naval did, himself, was to cherry-pick the data to create an impression. There is a more recent and more thorough analysis of publications in the field. I got it whitelisted so that it could be referenced and discussed -- but then I was topic banned. Note that most of my work with the article had been discussion, I was attempting to prepare and negotiate consensus, and it was working. Exactly what the cabal did not want.

A study of publications in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions.

There were many publications in 2008 and 2009 that hadn't made their way into the bibliographies; for example, the American Chemical Society, the largest scientific society in the world, published, in 2008 a Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, consisting of many peer-reviewed papers not published elsewhere. So the increase in publication rates since 2005 or so is understated in the chart on page 11. The impression that cold fusion was scientifically rejected was created in 1989, as can be seen in the chart (roughly 2:1 negative). That's the only year when negative reports, many based on hurried studies, clearly outnumbered positive. In 1990 it was about even, and every year after that, positive reports heavily outnumbered negative ones. This is only with peer-reviewed publications, and many researchers in the field, facing massive knee-jerk rejection of papers on the topic by some mainstream journals, published their work as conference papers or in non-reviewed journals. (There was continued publication in Chinese and Japanese, where the rejection was not as pervasive. The database only covers publications in English, I believe.)

Shortly before I was site-banned, the ACS Sourcebook was approved at WP:RSN as a usable reliable source, in spite of Enric Naval's arguments. I had listed the table of contents of the Sourcebook on Talk:Cold fusion so that other editors could ask for information. (The publisher, Oxford University Press, had kindly provided me with a complimentary copy of this $175 book.) Not one editor has requested any support from me on that, nor have any references to the book, which contains multiple secondary source reviews of aspects of the field, appeared in Talk. This is the effect of banning an editor who spent nine months becoming familiar with the literature in order to understand the issues, and I began as a skeptic. Who wouldn't?

(I do know editors, scientists, widely respected in the Wikipedia community, who have avoided editing the Cold fusion article in spite of some knowledge of the field, because of the contentious environment that makes it impossible to actually improve the article.)

This has nothing to do, really, with an interest in "alternative energy sources." I'm purely interested in the science, and, originally, in Wikipedia neutrality. That's why I was banned from the topic, and that's why I'm also banned from "meddling" in disputes where I'm not an "originating party." I know too much, and I was effective, until WMC banned me from cold fusion, and ArbComm ended up banning me based on some very weird evidence.

I don't think it was the evidence at all. I violated Rule 0.

In general terms, without addressing the specifics of this case, the kids who run wikipedia have a problem in distinguishing between COI and expertise.

The two are highly correlated. And this is completely general. Amateurs who become involved in a field develop attachments that can be even stronger than those employed in a field or affiliated with it, sometimes.

In the RfAr, I proposed that editors claiming expertise be routinely considered COI. It wasn't understood. It was assumed that I meant they should be blocked! The opposite, actually. Unless they've lied or violated civility or won't cooperate with neutral editors, they should be protected, encouraged, and even respected if they establish RL credentials, but the respect would not be official. Rather, their task would be to advise the consensus, providing RS to back what they claim. I'm not saying that they shouldn't edit articles, but they should never revert war except clear vandalism, not controversial. If they edit articles contentiously; they would lose protection against charges of POV pushing.

This is part of a wikitheory that distinguishes between writing and editing, and between advice and control.

Well then, I'm cancelling my order for ITK Raw Energy Bars - I'm sick and tired of base-element isotopes getting into my snack food! Deuterium... that stuff tastes like shit!

You'll never get above 0.02% of the hydrogen being deuterium with a natural water source. And besides, whatever is there is NATURAL deuterium. There's several grams of it in your body now. Those deuterium atoms have been around since the big bang, which is something that might not be true of all the ordinary hydrogen atoms (though it will be for most of them) and certainly isn't true for the oxygen atoms.

Noting your fascetiousness interestingly, there's some evidence that deuterium tastes slightly sweet, at least in high concenterations in heavy water. I can't taste the difference myself, however. But heavy water tastes enough like ordinary water to most people that you have to be on the look-out for the taste difference, and perhaps it's all in your mind, hey?

There's all kinds of heavy element isotopes in your food, most of them non-radioactive. Deuterium is the only isotope that isn't radioactive BUT that still wouldn't be good for you if it replaced all the hydrogen in your food. The reasons for that are extremely interesting. Drink nothing but heavy water for a week and you'd start to feel pretty bad. Eventually (after it replaced half your body water) it would kill you chemically. But do that same trick with C-13, N-15, or O-17 or O-18 and you'd be fine (just a bit heavier).

Abd, do you feel that this was fair, or that this is an accurate description? I'm reserving judgment.

At least if I was a mouse, unless the Nazis ran these experiments with humans.... As some have discovered and some more might be in the process of discovering, I am not a mouse.

Seriously, or as seriously as I get on the Review, I only have a kilogram of heavy water, not enough to last me for a week.

I prefer vodka and tonic -- a couple of drinks and I have more than enough to get me through the month.

You gotta love the Review. If not for this question from Cla68, I'd not even know I was blocked. Way cool. I warned Future Perfect, he took it as a threat, but ... that's quite how JzG and WMC took it. I'll put a quick summary here, but if anyone is interested, you could watch my WP Talk page if you aren't already. I'm in no hurry to put up an unblock template. Last time I was blocked, I didn't have to lift a finger. I don't expect quite such a rapid response this time, but it's only slightly more complicated.

Okay, some quick history. Sorry about the length, I'm truly trying to keep this brief. But some of it is entirely too juicy.

1. Abd is prohibited by ArbComm from intervening in any WP dispute in which he is not an "originating party," unless permitted by his mentor, but he is allowed to comment in polls.

2. In an RfAr/clarification, the mentor permission was rescinded, even though simultaneously an arbitrator was offering to be my mentor. He was told that arbitrators can't mentor editors, it seems that ArbComm is making up rules as it goes. The arb would recuse anyway, with or without the mentor thingie, so, WTF? Still, the motion passed. Mentor now moot.

3. I commented in an AfD and this was taken to RfAr/Clarification by WMC. Being questioned for taking it to RfAr/C when it was better at AE, WMC took it there, so I was the subject of two ArbComm actions in one day. Decision at AE: AfD is a poll. I thought that wouldn't have needed that much fuss, but that's what it's like on the 'pedia. And they call me a wikilawyer.

4. GoRight defends Pcarbonn and another editor at AN, against a ban based on no offense whatever but POV. GoRight is blocked, more than a day after the last supposed "disruption" (if you disagree with the majority and express it, you are disrupting the smooth flow of executions by causing editors to think), when a block wasn't at all a consensus in the discussion. However, the blocking admin, 2/0, properly takes this to AN for review. The review turns into a poll to support or overturn the block.

5. As it is a poll, and as I'm involved deeply (which I'd think would be the reason for allowing me to comment if I'm an "originating party"), and, in fact, I'm being frequently mentioned, I make a brief comment in the poll (not a tome, not uncivil, not disruptive except that some editors and administrators apparently break out in hives when they see my signature).

6. Future Perfect removes my comment as a ban violation, but doesn't go to AE.

7. Various editors now start claiming that it wasn't a poll, hence my edit was a violation.

8. I reject FP's interpretation, but take no disruptive action regarding that.

9. Atren reverts my comment back in. FP reverts him -- even though Tony Sidaway has now responded to the comment -- and threatens to block Atren, on my Talk page. I warn FP that he's in hot water if he blocks Atren, and that even threatening it was a problem, he should act quickly to avert the danger. Note that while bans allow removal of a comment from a banned editor, any other editor who thinks it germane can normally revert it back in. Threatening to block another editor for restoring a ban violation is totally improper, unless the content was itself outside community norms. Further, if someone has responded to a banned editor comment, it's less disruptive to strike it and note that it's from a banned editor. And my ban isn't an ordinary ban, a more proper response, if I violate the ban, isn't removal but AE and possibly a block if there is some emergency.

10. FP apparently has difficulty distinguishing his ass from a hole in the ground and asks me why he can't block me. I write that my comment wasn't about me, but about Atren, but, yes, now that he mentions it, he really shouldn't block me but should go to a noticeboard.

11. Tony Sidaway realizes that the list of bold supports and opposes on AN sure looks like a poll, so he removes the bold formatting on every comment, doing what TS does all the time: edit other people's comments to shift the meaning or import or impact or place of discussion.

11. JzG and Kim Dabelstein Petersen start arguing on User talk:GoRight that it wasn't a poll, it was only a discussion. JzG actually says that the AN discussion was like AfD, which we all know isn't about voting. Apparently JzG isn't following all this (good for him! keep that up and he might turn into a useful editor again!) and doesn't realize that he's pulling the rug out from under Future Perfect's argument. Tony Sidaway wins the Wikilawyering Prize, to be established here soon, for his action to convert a poll into a discussion by changing text style. If there are no bold comments, it's not a poll, it seems, even though the person originating the, er, discussion, wrote that he was !voting.

12. As they are discussing me and my action and the meaning of it, I comment on that Talk page, where I'm welcome, pointing out the utterly beautiful wikilawyering involved, it truly is a collectable classic.

13. Future Perfect blocks me. He makes, at the RfAr/Clarification, the classic argument against recusal rules. He doesn't note an enforcement action in the place for that. He doesn't address the issue of my comment being in a poll, and he doesn't note that I was being discussed on Talk:GoRight, only asserts -- with voluminous verbiage -- that I violated the sanction, and makes his argument that I'm setting up a device for preventing any admin from blocking me, a device that has never worked and would never work and which is completely preposterous, because any admin could block if it's an emergency anyway, and there are hundreds of administrators, and if I tried that trick I'd be history quickly. What's with Future Perfect, anyway? He seems colossally naive. He asked if, having commented in the Pcarbonn ban discussion, he could close it. He doesn't seem to have any clue about recusal policy. Loose cannon.

14. I'm not putting up an unblock template for the moment, I'd prefer to see what the community will do without it. Pcarbonn was just driven away from Cold fusion because of his POV, which will happen with any expert familiar with the research, given the massive shift that took place in the period after the original rejection in 1989-1990. Pcarbonn wasn't even editing the article, just making suggestions on the talk page. Same with Jed Rothwell, likewise blocked, orignally by a highly involved admin, JzG, then by MastCell explicitly to support JzG, not for actual sanctionable disruption. Same with another editor who was also banned by Future Perfect with Pcarbonn even though he wasn't even notified of the AN discussion and the discussion wasn't about him. See, same POV being "pushed." If it 's good enough for Global Warming or Climate Change, it's good enough for Cold Fusion.

15. Just the way it is. No complaints from me. It's perfect. I want to thank all the editors and ex-editors on Wikipedia Review who have helped me to realize what a game it is. But, the game isn't over. The pins have been set up with care and the ball is rolling, it will be fun to watch.

16. The core of what I'm doing: As long as POVs are preferentially sanctioned, Wikipedia cannot realize the vision of a neutral encyclopedia, for the only gauge of neutrality is consensus, and by removing one side of a dispute (usually the minority side, but not always), any apparent consensus is a false one. Instead, behavioral guidelines should be vigorously enforced, if necessary, but not to the neglect of encouraging and facilitating dispute resolution process. ArbComm sanctions editors for supposedly not following DR process, but does not itself understand true dispute resolution, it thinks of the quiet after a massacre as a resolution. What's known and understood about genuine dispute resolution is that it takes a lot of discussion, with careful and often facilitated process, and the oligarchy detests discussion that actually goes deep enough to resolve disputes, and they sanction attempts. It's doomed until something breaks.

17. I don't give a fuck if I'm blocked. See my signature here. I only edit Wikipedia to help the community find its way through the chaos, I do know the path, but if the community doesn't want the help, and rejects it, I've done my job, fulfilled my obligation, at least as far as on-wiki work is concerned. Anything that truly needs to be done, I can do, through my vast army of meat puppets and automated sock editors and robot slave arbitrators. Heh heh heh! Actually, this army is so efficient that it requires no action from me at all, and time wounds all heels.

Yeah, but I'm a Muslim so I'll have to stick with heavy water, which God forgot to forbid.

Er, sorry God, you didn't forget. You knew we'd have sense enough not to drink poison, unless it's alcohol, in which there is "some good but much harm." (That's Qur'an, folks, and I promise not to preach here, but I do get to mention it when it's fun.) Let me hope for you, Horse, the good and not the harm. Now, back to being silly.

In silliness there is little harm and much good. Hence I prefer it to drinking either heavy water or alcohol. Besides, heavy water is expensive, about $600 US per kilogram including shipping (a bit less than a liter, eh?)

And here's a big Horsey Insha'Allah back to you!

mmmm.... usage exactly appropriate, and hamza in the right place. Horsey, you apparently have some knowledge. Perhaps it comes from the Prophet's permission for gambling but only specifically with horse racing (under certain conditions), because of the resulting improvement of the breed by encouraging contests. My guess: you like horses, improvement, and breeding. Horses are fine, and the rest, eh!!!

That sounds like something a mindlessly rich person might do. Evian isn't exclusive enough? Well, try some heavy water for alleged calorie-free sweetness.

That's the most interesting post you've ever made...and less than three lines.

That's because he's talking about me. Let's face it, I bring out the best in people.

I am not surprised by Abd's block. Nor GoRight's. Birds of a feather and all that ...

Meh. We'll see how it turns out. 2/0 has no consensus for his block ... either before OR after. That's bad enough for him, but his timing utterly sucked. I had been away for over a day and a half and I was engaged in recent change patrol of all things when he issued the block. Now THERE's a real imminent danger to the project.

Still, LHVU makes a credible point that the neutral parties agree that I have crossed some sort of line so as long as I can get 2/0 to actually define what that line was I'll agree not to cross it. Thus far it appears to be limited to sniping and sarcasm on my part. Heh. Like the people I am sniping and sarcasming don't do the same to me.

I can be cooperative when the community actually speaks. I just don't put any stock in the obvious partisan bleating of my political enemies.

Oh, Christ, it's 50 cents a gram in bulk, and you can do most interesting experiments with it, with just a few grams. Taste it. Freeze it and note that the cubes SINK in ordinary water, and so on.

Some of us spend a few bucks on curiousity, CoolHand. Sue us.

If at any stage either of you showed any sign of wanting to add interesting encyclopedic content to WP rather than treating it as some giant political game, many of your problems would go away I suspect.

It's no good Abd spending his time blaming others on WP and insulting them here. Presumably this gives him some kind of a buzz. On the other hand for over a year now has shown almost no interest in writing WP articles.

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to the sequence of events discussed in this edit. It seems to me that ZP5 raised a valid concern, TOAT simply acted as an enabler for WMC's provocative editing, and then there is of course the issue of WMC's provocative editing. 2/0 seems to be disinclined to notice or act upon WMC's provocative editing. Any theories on why that might be?

Warning: Tome. Do not read if allergic to Abd content, beware of Dog Vomit Slime Mold (see Abd Talk at the top)

Sure. The Pope is Catholic, and you know what bears do in the woods.

Prediction, greater than 50%, I'd guess. WMC, Enric Naval, Mathsci, and JzG will be enjoined from interacting with me on-wiki because of how they have obviously been following me around trying to find "violations" to assert. The same applies to harassment of GoRight and others by the cabal. As to GoRight, though, it will take an ArbComm case to establish the basis. The case(s) already exist for me and those editors.

I'd hardly been editing at all, and for removing a redundant wikilink to an article that isn't about Cold fusion, that I happened to notice because it's on my watchlist and I never dreamed it would be included in a ban, I'm accused of violating my CF topic ban?

(The article is Oppenheimer-Phillips process, and there is no controversy about it, to my knowledge. Yes, a connection can be asserted, peripherally, as can be asserted for a whole boatload of noncontroversial stuff. I don't think I was banned from nuclear physics articles, but if I tried to make an edit to one of those articles making some connection to cold fusion, sure, that would be a ban violation. But removing a redundant wikilink? What it shows is the lengths these idiots scumbags will go to try to ban someone who has disagreed with them. Mathsci talks about editing articles, and sure, good for him, but every bit of fuss he has raised has caused quite a few editors to spend more time not editing articles. Including me, for one. I was starting to do a little wikignoming when blocked. So ... I appreciate the reminder of what a ridiculous waste of time Wikipedia is because of the lack of protection for minority views, stuff that is basic in democracy, but, of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, it also violates basic expectations of fairness, and Wikipedia Review has been quite an education in that respect. My little story has been repeated for many, and that will continue, unless a hand descends from the heavens and fixes it. Or unless ... let's see what happens.)

And I was blocked for a week for a different alleged ban violation, supposedly as arbitration enforcement, when the case calls for graduated blocks, increasing gradually up to a week? By an admin who is citing a post, as cause, in a discussion that was about me and my editing as a violation of the sanction against commenting when I'm not an "originating party," which is a preposterous interpretation of the sanction, which was clearly what it was called, an "MYOB" sanction -- Mind Your Own Business, not a "don't edit unless we specifically name you as a party and permit your participation" sanction." And it was on GoRight Talk, where the comment was welcome.

And in that post, it is no coincidence, I criticized the actions of Future Perfect with respect to his revert warring and threat to block another editor, so he basically blocked me for criticizing him, and the restriction violation was an excuse, a cover, whether he realizes it or not. That's part of what recusal policy is about, requiring admins to recognize when they might act excessively, or might even just be seen as acting excessively.

Another prediction, dicier but still quite possible: Future Perfect either explains to ArbComm, to its satisfaction, why he won't do this again, or he loses his bit. Let's see: I've made this prediction for four administrators, total. Once was long ago and I was naive, and it was not really the same kind of thing, merely a very diffuse argument, so let's set that aside.

That leaves three: JzG and WMC and Future Perfect. Two down, one to go. Note that I warned all three about use of tools while involved, with regard to actions against others, and all three blew it off.

What do I care if I'm blocked? I can still file a case, or it can be filed for me. My one-week block expires in a few days. Let's see ... will I be blocked again based on this comment? I rather doubt it, though it's not impossible. Nothing is impossible on Wikipedia, unless it is sensible decisions, made with minimal fuss.

So, once I'm off my block, I can really go off my block. The restriction absolutely does not prevent me from filing an RfC or an ArbComm case as an "originating party," there would be no way to wikilawyer that one out, and plenty of cause has been set up by these busy bees, totally gratuitously.

And Future Perfect handily set it up by not only revert warring my permitted comment out, but also by blocking me after a dispute between us had been established and was being discussed. That's why I was tickled pink when blocked, besides the fact that it saves me a lot of time that I might otherwise waste on Wikipedia work or comments.

Of course, ArbComm can decide not to accept the case, and could sanction me for filing frivolously. Remember, as well, with an RfC, I'd need to find another certifier to an attempt to resolve the dispute. There could be grounds to go directly to ArbComm, however, given that there has been so much before ArbComm already on this.

Another blast from the past: it was predicted that ArbComm would slap me down if I filed a case against WMC.

In that line, and to quote a great remark from Short Brigade Harvester Boris recently (it was about Future Perfect crowing that he'd reverted my !vote in a poll and warned me about restriction violation): "That went over really well, didn't it?"

I like SBHB, he's often been a cogent commentator. I went to his talk page and referenced his comment, and asked him to stick around, and also invited off-wiki contact.

One dangerous assumption that has been made about me: that if I act, I will necessarily act alone. No, I don't go back to ArbComm alone, not for anything more than some RfAr/Clarification maybe, or a personal response to something. I won't act unless I have support lined up, nor do I recommend anyone to act before ArbComm without that support, particularly if the cabal is involved.

Why would I do all this? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? No, the opposite, actually. The cabal and similar groups, as well as certain editors, use banning and blocking to get rid of inconvenient editors, even when there are clearly alternatives, and the effect is loss of neutrality of articles, plus it sets up conditions for ongoing disruption.

If it's necessary, sure, ban an editor from an article page, or from certain categories. But from Talk? When inappropriate Talk can quickly be removed, and, even, with enough justification, a bot could be set to revert all the editor's edits, thus requiring, effectively, a second for any comment judging that it was relevant and not disruptive? That could be done informally by any editor backed by consensus, without a bot. Quick and easy. No, they want to punish and they want to completely exclude. Dissenting opinion drives them crazy.

And the effect is long-term violation of the fundamental neutrality policy. It is very important, and not personal. The rock-em block-em reign of terror has to stop, and it has to start by ArbComm taking notice, and if I have to fart loudly in the courtroom to get their attention, I will. Whatever it takes. That's IAR, and if I'm blocked it is absolutely no big deal, unless someone can use it for good purpose. Like getting rid of WMC's admin bit, long abused, to the point of media notice.

I didn't do that, they did. I merely provided the blatant excuse, by calling WMC's bluff and bluster and being blocked. There was cheering in the wikistreets, actually, and we can get an idea of just how popular WMC actually was by his vote in the ArbComm elections. I'd bet every supporter made sure to vote and tried to get whatever votes they could to be cast by others, and the cabal is powerful because they are "core." Which could mean "fanatic." WMC was only popular among the faction that circled him to protect him, to stop a consensus from forming on what were often blatantly inappropriate actions. And it had happened so many times that administrators who saw the problem were in despair that anything could be done about it.

Well, something can be done, but it takes balls. I may use too many words, but I don't think I can be accused of not being bold enough. And, guess what? If I go to ArbComm, I'm not going to put up a word unless it has been vetted and edited by others. They will imagine that I will put up my patented Wall-o-Text ™, and they know how the Arbitration Bored works, often, so they convince themselves that they are perfectly safe, they can do whatever they please and it will go on as before, they will get away with it.

Until they don't.

If I have learned anything, it is to vary behavior. Frequently outside expectations. However, in fact: I have, to the best of my ability, respected the stupid idiotic ArbComm sanctions. I know how to sock successfully and didn't. All the alleged violations were within what I believed permitted, and as objections were made, I curtailed the specific behaviors until I got advice from ArbComm or Arbitration Enforcement permitting or not permitting the behavior. "Respect" obviously means "respect their right of decision, no matter how stupid." There are limits to that, but ArbComm hasn't reached them, nor do I expect it to. Not yet. How bad can it get?

Well, it could get worse. How much worse, I don't know. There are some very good editors on ArbComm, but also some burned-out editors, perhaps a majority, not willing to do heavy lifting, and they don't have much real support, in the way that would be needed, support that would help them to make better decisions based on deeper investigation and analysis and careful deliberation. They don't have time for it, which would suggest structure, but they don't have the structure, either. So .... I'll oblige them and set some up. Off-wiki, where it can't be disrupted by the cabal or by anyone, really, short of governmental-level resources....

GoRight, you are a fucking troublemaker. God bless the troublemakers, particularly your kind. I wouldn't have continued to defend you and cooperate with you if you had not shown that you actually are able to cooperate, that you just want a level playing field, not to control the whole damn game.

You were blocked because you raised cogent arguments that they couldn't answer, and they'd have had to think and maybe read stuff longer than they like, so ... you were blocked without consensus, that's obvious. Played skillfully, GoRight, and only if you are attached to your account and its right to edit without interruption could you be considered to have "failed." You have spoken truth to power, for roughly two years now, and it's remarkable how long you have survived. You defied Raul654 when he was still a power to be reckoned with, and you chose your battles, you didn't challenge your editing restriction vs. the WMC article, you just kept plugging away, dealing with whatever obstacles arose, and you are continuing to do that.

They hate that, and they have been waiting for the chance to give you the boot. But they don't realize that it was a trap, not one that you set -- you don't think this way -- but that was arranged by reality and by their own viciousness. They have exposed themselves, even more, every move like the discussions leading up to your block makes the problem more and more visible, if somehow attention can be drawn to it. And those in the community who want to confront the behavior are becoming more skilled and effective.

Getting blocked, particularly in how it came down, gives you entry to ArbComm, and they are too stupid to realize this, it gives you some time on a certain kind of center stage where part of the influence that runs Wikipedia is determined.

I wrote, on TenOfAllTrades Talk, that I was always aware of ArbComm looking over my shoulder. Now, that wasn't exactly true, because my awareness wasn't continuous, but it was a guiding principle, to try to make sure that my actions, if carefully examined, would stand up. Indeed, I failed to factor for how stupid the majority was, how ready to make snap decisions that would be completely unsupportable if they gave them a little more thought. But I had to learn the political realities of Wikipedia, that was part of my project. Anyway, TenOfAllTrades called this "grandstanding." However, his action at that point will be quite embarrassing to him, should he look back at it years from now, having matured more. I was trying to warn him that if he didn't seriously consider what I was saying to him, his friend WMC was likely to lose his bit. I was practically begging him to give it a look and think of the welfare of his friend and the project, and mediate. Or, alternatively, if I was wrong, try to explain to me how I was wrong. Assume good faith, that I am merely mistaken. Nope. He blew it off and actually complained about it as some attempt to threaten him.

It's not only ArbComm looking over my shoulder, it is my future. I look back at what I wrote years ago, frequently.... and I try to be prepared for that. I have to live with myself, for the rest of my life. Maybe even longer, eh?