I'd noticed that MastCell showed up fairly frequently in the Cold fusion troubles, but today he again semiprotected Talk:Cold fusion. The log. MastCell has hit this article four times, Kww twice.

Underneath the earlier protections: editing by JedRothwell, who has never been banned, it was simply a declaration by JzG, and notice who else protected the article twice. JedRothwell wasn't blocked previously, until ... MastCell blocked him for .... ban evasion? Not clear. MastCell announced this as a favor to ... JzG.

I've seen semiprotection declined at RfPP many times unless there was substantial IP problem editing, more than occasional edits. What was happening at Cold fusion? The history.

So, who was editing IP? Almost entirely Jed Rothwell, he signs his edits. Not banned, but technically, blocked, because the account JedRothwell (T-C-L-K-R-D) that he'd not used for years was post-facto blocked, long after he was being accused of ban evasion. Blocked by ... MastCell.

I just noticed that Talk:JedRothwell had been deleted by OTRS request from Rothwell, that's believable. He detests Wikipedia, but recently showed up to defend his name.

The user page has comments from Hipocrite and Enric Naval, up to their eyeballs in the cold fusion mess. The alleged bans were discussed in RfAr/Abd and JzG. Not bans. Unilateral declarations by JzG, not even on the user's talk page, apparently.

This discussion shows what all this looks like to JedRothwell. Notice the "suspected sock" template. Pretty clever sleuthing, there, given the signatures.

Notice as well, MastCells' poking of Rothwell. There had indeed been a pile of IP editing by a banned user, Moulton. See IP contributions. I'd noticed this at the time, and wondered that it was being allowed. Why? Well, Moulton was advocating the House POV. He's very skeptical about cold fusion.... No rush to block him, that IP was never blocked. Just Jed Rothwell, an actual expert.

(Rothwell is a writer and editor, not a scientist, but he knows the field and the literature like the palm of his hand.)

In any case, no IP edits show since the article came off protection. But there were two, in fact, a pair of self-reverted edits, leaving nothing behind. And then the "nothing" was obliterated by .... Kww.

Kww and MastCell are apparently co-chairs of the Cold fusion Talk page, protecting the wiki by keeping out the ... experts, who are not to be allowed to discuss changes to the article. Or defend themselves when accused of espionage or copyright violation.

There are two deleted edits showing up on the history of the talk page, which is presumably why it has been semiprotected.

Of course. Now what were those deleted edits?

What's happening at cold fusion is that there is no complaint from those who actually work on the article, only from those who simply watch it to prevent "socking." Enforcement of blocks and bans becomes the goal, not improvement or protection of articles.

One pair of edits by a banned editor, instantly self-reverted, doesn't justify protection. However, the clique knows that some of these edits will be read and accepted (most of them, in fact, if not all). That was happening. It cannot be allowed.

The two edits were a pair, one adding comment, one removing it because the editor was under a ban. The revision deletion was a blatant, on-the-face and in substance, violation of Revision Deletion policy.

MastCell long collaborated with your clique, Mathsci, he's just continuing the censorship. What he and you consider fringe must not even be part of the dialog, not even hidden in history.

However, your position can't even make it into the peer-reviewed mainstream journals, for the last five years, whereas the "fringe" reports completely dominate publication in those journals, it's now running about two papers per month. I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Still waiting. I think the shoe got lost.

This situation is a result of the core believing that it understands content sufficiently to ban based on POV, policies and guidelines be damned, and of ArbComm failing to address it when it had opportunities.

Exposing this has become my agenda. My on-wiki agenda was never cold fusion, per se.

Business as usual, it occurred to me to make a helpful edit in Flagrant Violation of WikiDecency, so I did. MastCell has his eagle eyes open for any Nonsense Like This, so he reverted and blocked the IP. Compliant with WP:RBI, so far, so no complaints from me, not that I'd actually complain if they gave it their darndest.

But usually, when I'm blocked, I look at the admin's contributions, and came across this discussion, where admins are lamenting how bad it is on Wikipedia.

I thought of dropping a comment there -- hey, I'd show the hangman how to tie the knot, if he asked, or seems to be having trouble -- but, nah, not this time. They are just kvetching, they don't actually want to know how to make it better, because they block anyone who tries to tell or show them. Too many words (in the telling, at least!), can't you boil it down so I can get it without interrupting my patrol for Those Awful Socks? I'm a Busy Man, you know.

Secret, MastCell: ArbComm isn't going to back someone who does the Right Thing even the Right Way, if they don't like it for some reason.

You wonder why Wikipedia is going to hell in a handbasket? Notice that you are running, and what you are carrying.

Okay, what I'd do, my humble or not-so-humble suggestion. When I revert a block or ban evader, and the edit is brief, it's trivial to see if it's a good edit or not! This one, from me, was obvious. Notice the context, and that context has been repeated over and over on that talk page: someone wants to discuss the topic and they are told Go Away. How about telling them something nicer that might actually help the WikiMedia Foundation?

I did this when enforcing blocks of Moulton on Wikiversity. I'd see the edits and revert them ASAP. I used to log these, but that's because I needed to be extremely careful, it's not essential. Then I'd revert them back in if they were okay, thus affirming my position as an editor that they were, at least, harmless in themselves. Even if Moulton was under an No Editing Absolutely Positively We Mean Business Ix-Nay Ix-Nay Ban.

If MastCell would consider that, I'd consider returning to self-reversion, so he could ignore the edits if he wants, and someone else could make the decision to bring them back in, if they want. As it is, he's got a pure negative going, he gets no value for his work reverting and blocking.

Of course, if he disagrees with linking to Wikiversity, that would be another thing. I considered adding a link to Wikiversity at the same time on the article page, but, mirable dieux, it was already there, placed by someone completely without my knowledge or request. If that were a new editor, he'd be accused and under investigation for being a sock of mine, I can be sure. But he goes back to 2004.

(Given that edit, the only evidence that this edit was mine was the content, the link to Wikiversity, plus the IP range is part of a large one used by my main ISP. If I'd been aware of the prior edit to the article linking to the same WV page, I'd have referred to it, creating a little useful confusion, and next time I might use an actual sock, so that MastCell can get his knickers wrapped more tightly. Natural consequences. If MastCell emails me, we could have a nice chat, I'm sure. But doesn't RBI require that responsible users completely disconnect and refuse to communicate with the damned, er, excommunicated, ... banned editors?)

So the only question here is whether or not it is useful to suggest to people who want discussion (and original research) that they can go to Wikiversity. I predict that within a year or so, this will become common practice. And the overall effect on Wikipedia will be an uptick in the quality of discussion and articles.

One more piece of wikitrivia: From Talk:Cold fusion:
Sure. But there is a Wikimedia Foundation project that is even better. I put the cross-wiki template in the CF article last year, dreaming for a moment that it might not be controversial, it was reverted, with this summary: (removed link to CF wikiversity page, which is essentially self-published by Abd and biased; if you want to add it back please discuss it first).

I thought that was delicious. By that argument, related articles on Wikipedia should not be under "See Also" because they might be "self-published" by the editors who worked on them. Wikiversity is covered by WMF neutrality policy, and editing is open, generally, to Wikipedia editors under SUL, but neutrality there is understood in an inclusive way. It's not an encyclopedia, which, practically by definition, must exclude much. Wikiversity is for educational resources, and discussion is an important part of any serious education.