User talk:Abd/Archive 11

RFAR
Go to WP:RFAR and add your statement. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jehochman. Truth be told, I drafted the RfAr yesterday and was consulting about it. One admin was concerned (expressed in email) that if I filed it, I'd take heat and might be topic banned. This is an admin who considers that JzG would be desysopped if it's filed, and he really didn't want to see me topic banned, he sees my work there as valuable, I'd say. I had concluded that the project doesn't need me as much as it needs to be free of administrative abuse, which drives away many editors. So, indeed, thank you very much. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of the situation, in certain details, but you were spot on that the matter requires arbitration. For reference, folks: Requests_for_arbitration.
 * Seeing your reference in the originating statement to the spillover of the dispute on your Talk page, I looked again. Yes. In fact, that was the total origin for me, I was blissfully unaware of all those worms, and had no involvement with Cold fusion and no vision of JzG as a problem administrator, I had only positive interaction with him previously, to my recollection. You were supportive, if a bit naive about what admins would do, and I see that I predicted the present situation as one of the possible outcomes if JzG was intransigent. I also see that I predicted (or "warned," but, really, this was simple discussion) as to the steps I'd take to try to resolve this, and, from the beginning, after JzG blew off simple requests, I was looking for someone to give good advice to him. I'm quite happy for that discussion to come to the attention of ArbComm, it places my subsequent actions in context, and demolishes the view that this is about pushing a fringe POV. I had, personally, concluded, almost twenty years ago, that Cold fusion was a big mistake. It was only, later, when I'd read a great deal of the literature, that I came to conclude otherwise, and recent RS is confirming that revised view in spades. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are now 11 votes to accept arbitration, it's unanimous so far, and all comments by arbitrators are right on. Because that is not only an absolute majority, and even if every other arbitrator shows up and votes to decline, and unless something drastic happens, the case will open after 48 hours from filing. I didn't like, Jehochman, that the case wasn't narrow, I'd been advised to keep it *very* narrow, it may instead be an omnibus case, because it looks like arbitrators will examine everyone involved, everyone who has filed comments, it's going to be messy, I predict. In the end, though, this may be better; I'm not thrilled that there have been administrators dismissing concerns about recusal as "wikilawyering" and suggesting that this was all dead horse being flogged. While it still seems unlikely, there could be broader consequences than one admin bit and some derivative warning. While I could be topic banned (I doubt that a general ban would result), I also think that I can defend against that effectively and expect some substantial defense from others.


 * I've been sitting on my hands, avoiding temptations to comment on all the garbage appearing, because it's moot. The case is going to be accepted, and adding comment debating with preposterous statements adds nothing and could only make me look bad. JzG has, shall we say, been quite cooperative, demonstrating the problem with his response. Meanwhile, it's looking now like NET will be delisted in short order, or at least the request will be declined by a blacklist admin contrary to consensus, which will, then esclate to a broader discussion, and it's pretty clear where that would lead. Heh, heh, Jehochman, my nefarious plan to open the door to masses of fringe edits is working .... not! The plan is, in fact, to follow existing policy and procedures, to stop deviating from them to pursue private agendas that can flourish for a while due to problems with local consensus.


 * Thanks again, if there is any involved party who is safe in this affair, it would be you. Your original efforts to decertify could have been used against you, but you very clearly rectified that in a way that leaves you looking quite good. Now, if I could only persuade you and Durova to patch it up, my work would be almost complete.... maybe you could apologize to her? You know, it never hurts, I'd apologize to Adolf Hitler if it would have eased some conflict and maybe saved a few lives. If you can't figure out what to apologize for, I could try to find something! There is always something! Don't worry about whether or not she will reciprocate, she might, she might not. It doesn't matter, what matters is, always, making our own behavior be better than above reproach. You do know that I'd say -- and will say and maybe already have said -- the same thing to her. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I was over 500 words, though not terribly far. I don't have a tool that will tell me easily (is there one!), and looking at wikitext character count picks up all the links, etc. I edited it down, relying more heavily on the RfC. It's moot, anyway, I could probably have written "See RfC" and it would have been enough. JzG had commented with probably double the text of my statement. He, too, pulled it down. Thanks for your work for the committee, KnightLago, it's appreciated. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ADHD
Hello Abd We have a couple of people trying to deny the existence of any controversy surrounding ADHD again. You comments are always welcome.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm a tad occupied right now with an RfAr. However, I'm amused by editors who, in debate, claim that there is no controversy, when, if there was no controversy, there would be no debate. Oxymoron.
 * However, sure, it can be claimed that there is no notable controversy. Except that there is probably reliable source of some level that shows that some controversy, at least, is notable. Hence the issue is not the existence of controversy, but following WP:UNDUE, which is never an excuse to exclude reliably sourced text from the encyclopedia, though it can govern where and how it is used. That, indeed, is a reason for having a Controversies article, to allow detailed exploration according to what is in reliable source, without damaging the broader article. See the RfAr on "Fringe science." --Abd (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta admins and discussions
I've asked here whether I've found the right links to the meta discussions and actions regarding the Abd and JzG arbitration request. I'm asking the other parties and the two meta admins (here and on meta), if they can confirm this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'd suggest meeting for a jolly cup of tea.....


...but we don't even live in the same state!

Just wanted to drop a note saying that even though I sometimes think that you're completely off your rocker, I do (For the most part, any way! :P  ) appreciate your posts here on Wikipedia. --NBahn (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Verbal  chat  06:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I have no idea what you are talking about. Color me "impaired," and provide a diff. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all discussions at WP:RFAR. Warning each other does not make much sense. If there are issues, ask an arbitration clerk for help. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this has anything to do with the RfAr, except that Verbal commented there and has been claiming that I've committed various offenses. So I'd appreciate knowing what edit he's talking about! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, maybe I was uncivil! I didn't intend to be. I can only speculate that this has something to do with Kirk Shanahan, and I doubt that Verbal understands that interaction. Shanahan isn't complaining about me, he's complaining about Wikipedia. Because he's an expert, I'm very willing to cut him lots of slack, but not to the extent that I don't challenge his apparent bias and assumptions, as I would challenge those of any peer, even if the peer were more expert than I on a particular topic. It's part of how I learn. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ADHD dispute
I saw your comment on the Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder, and I appreciate you looking in.

Until now, I was convinced that we would be able to mediate a compromise in term of debating the issue with logic, relevant sources and facts. However, within the last 24 hours, the debate has turned kinda personal, and I am not so sure of that anymore. I have seen what I would characterize as disruptive editing (repeatedly not maintaining thread structure in the debate), feigning ignorance and finally attempts to defame me with long-shot accusations of sock-puppetry. Well, if you look at the last two sections I think it is pretty obvious.

So, at this moment I am at a loss as how to continue and I would appreciate your suggestions. TIA.

Kind regards, Johan --Sportsmand (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignore personal attacks against yourself, take the advice from long-term editors. Let others complain about you. Listen to the substance of the complaints, don't respond to the "personal" part of it, it will just drag you down and make you look bad. If someone attacks you on an article Talk page, just blow it off. If they attack you on your Talk, do what you like with it, you can delete it if you want. If they *warn* you, take it seriously, and respond calmly, and if you can accommodate what they are rudely demanding, do it. Do not respond in kind. Personal attacks against you have nothing to do with content decisions. Don't edit war, but persist in discussion, respecting consensus and follow WP:DR if you are outnumbered locally. If an edit war appears in the article, you can get page protection in minutes at WP:RfPP. I hold myself, generally, to 1RR, but if you feel that you need to go beyond that, perhaps to prove that there is edit warring going on, i.e., unreasonable reassertion of edits without discussion seeking consensus, and without reasonable attempts to propose compromises in modified edits, you can go beyond, but *never* violate 3RR. Do read WP:3RR so you know the precise boundaries, and don't push them. Don't worry about the page being protected in the "wrong version." It can be fixed. Don't allow Wikipedia situations to become emergencies, unless they really are, and if they are, it will be very easy to get help. The "right content" is almost never an emergency.


 * One way to test for edit warring is to do your best to find a compromise. Say some text that is reliably sourced is being removed, on the argument of undue weight, one of the most common areas of conflict. So, modify the text to improve weight. Maybe add text reliably sourced supporting a contrary view. If the responding edit is simple removal again, that's edit warring. Be careful. Seek consensus. And then, if the other side edit wars away, you can either let the article lie or request RfPP and then pursue consensus. While the page is protected, show consensus on the Talk page, you can get changes made.


 * Regardless, if there is conflict that isn't resolved in short order, start to use DR procedures. Get neutral opinion. Article RfC can be used; I may be able to help, I know ways to do this that can be more effective than a simple RfC; basically, turning RfC into a more deliberative process that breaks an issue down into subissues and seeks consensus on one at a time. It takes work, but the end is generally stable text; in the long run it may save work. If people are unfairly attacking you, let them escalate, not you. Then respond calmly and with detachment, I recommend careful reading of WP:DGAF. When facing higher-level processes, brevity and careful editing and consideration of your responses become much more important; casual editors won't read long posts even if every word is important, and so you'll merely get knee-jerk responses. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit more. If they are discussing disruptively, organize the discussion. Start up sections that are narrow-focused, and summarize the arguments of the other side, do your best job of this, the goal is that they will say, "Yeah! That's what we've been saying!" Say it thoroughly and well, and then respond. Let them be distracted and flap all over the place, don't buy it, stick with what's clear and simple. You do not need to respond to every argument in every place. An argument made on Talk and not contradicted doesn't thereby become policy! The goal of Talk is text, and what counts, in the end, is edits of text, don't let Talk page clarity be anything more than a means, it's not an end. Do not carry on a dispute by yourself. If you can't get help, you are probably barking up the wrong tree! --Abd (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is very helpful. The second to last sentence made me laugh loudly. Because that's exactly what I feel I'm doing at the moment ;o). However, in my opinion the relevant pages needs a serious work-over as it partly paints a pathetically wrong picture of the condition (A few examples here: Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder). I just feel that something must be done. But do you consider my present situation as one where I am "carrying on a dispute by myself"? --Sportsmand (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the last question, no, I don't consider that, which means nothing because I didn't look at the history. I gave you general advice, I did not look at Talk or article history. Just because there isn't anyone else doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does mean you should be very, very careful, and you will have to be patient. Radically modifying an article, don't even think about it unless you find more support. But if you can identify one change, preferably very small and well-sourced, which will improve the article, try making it. If opposed, then start to discuss it, and pay close attention to the arguments. If the arguments aren't clear, ask others to clarify them and try to clarify them yourself. Get everything on the table, then proceed step by step through it, seeking agreement on each point. There are lots of techniques you can use, but the essential point is to follow process that can actually find consensus, or, alternatively, expose that a dispute is based on something other than what can be shown through reliable sources! But do this without making accusations, such an attached person may simply disappear instead of throwing themselves on their own spear.--Abd (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

delisting of newenergytimes.com
Just dropping by for a short friendly advice, I hope it's ok. About MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, in order to further your point and substantiate that it's a valuable resource for articles, you should list a few pages from the site and explain how they would be useful in articles (personally, I would have first attempted to whitelist a few selected links before attempting full removal). Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what we did with lenr-canr.org, right? However, lenr-canr.org was, in the end, meta blacklisted and that's quite difficult to deal with; politically, it had to start with whitelisting a few pages (and one is done, and you didn't pick the best candidate, but one which at least had consensus previously, there will be others). However, newenergytimes.com is only blacklisted here, and it's a poster boy for blacklisting based on content considerations, and you might note how shallow the sentiment is for that. Hence, instead of wasting weeks on whitelistings, I went directly for total delisting. (As well, newenergytimes.com was declined for blacklisting at meta.) Right now consensus seems to be for that, but we'll see what happens. 12 days? It shouldn't take that long! If delisting is declined, which I think rather unlikely at this point, but not impossible, I'd probably set up a whitelisting at the same time as I pursue WP:DR on the issue. --Abd (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An aside
First, I wanted to thank you for the tone of your comments. It was appreciated.

Just thought I would take a moment to try to clarify something.

Something you may (or may not) be aware of: There's a difference between user categories and userboxes. The adding or removing of a category from a userbox is simply at editorial discretion. Similar to how we remove a category from any other template, or even from any other page.

And a CfD would have no bearing on the user's userboxes, only on a category. A CfD would generally not cause an editor to not be able to have such a notice on their userpage. (Noting that categories are not to be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices.)

Anyway, hope you're having a good day : ) - jc37 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew that. However, for users, categories are a way of nondisruptively communicating. Userboxes can do the same, but it's more cumbersome, and not as reliable. I notice the Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. If one is going to start deleting categories, how about that one? I'd vote keep in the CfD. I'm an inclusionist. Except for things I disagree with, of course. Not.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by bottom-of-the-page notices. "I'm not sure" is newspeak for "I haven't the foggiest." --Abd (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A common error by those new to categories is to add a category to make a "statement" on the page.
 * If they wish to make such a statement, they should on that page, and not by adding a category. (Happens all the time. Someone places "Category:Murderers" on a page, often in the hope of sidestepping the need for verifiable sources. When, of course, no category should be added to an article without supportive information. Categories should never be used in the place of adding content.)


 * Also your statement: "However, for users, categories are a way of nondisruptively communicating."
 * Should probably be followed up with: "...for collaboration.".
 * (And I'm not sure how a userbox doesn't reliably communicate information about the user?)


 * When dealing with user categories based upon supporting/opposing an issue, a key question should probably be: "How does this help Wikipedia?" Does it do more than just divide Wikipedians based upon a position or belief, or promote potential disruption (like inappropriate canvassing)? If not, then it probably should be deleted as divisive, per policy.


 * And I didn't understand what you were trying to say following: "I notice...".


 * Not that my understanding is a requirement atm, obviously : ) - jc37 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd think the same arguments would apply, and I just thought to point out the irony. Sure, communicating for the purpose of collaboration, but also for social glue, which is important. How else would be know whom to invite for our International Conference of Deletionist Wikipedians? Or where to flog the T-shirts?


 * Categories are used for sorting content and finding related content, but that's with articles. With users, they are used for sorting users and finding related users..... Using a category without any text is fine for users! --Abd (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one issue with user categories is that users often self-idntify with them. If they self-identify with a particular topic, then, by extension, they will fight for anything even remotely related to that topic, regardless of whether the target of their crusade is helping anything or anyone.


 * A good example are the wikiphilosophy cats (one of which you brought up). But then, of course, we're falling into the trap of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.


 * As for the rest, please give WP:USERCAT and WP:OC/U a read. The guidelines there are a result of years of discussions. Perhaps they might more clearly clarify?


 * And incidentally, I welcome your subsequent thoughts/comments. - jc37 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI re upcoming ArbCom case
Abd, just fyi: Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard EdChem (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment at WP:AN
Hi Abd. Just as a suggestion, saying that you pursue DR "with minimal disruption" probably isn't the best move, as it is likely to antagonise some editors. It suggests that you ignored comments at the RfC, RfA, and a number of other venues. You may well wish to argue that the disruption was necessary, but saying that it was minimal suggests that you either aren't listening or don't care about their views. I'm not assuming that either is the case, but it is hard (if not impossible) to say that anything which escalates to an RfA isn't disruptive. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, thanks for the kind thoughts. Nothing in what I wrote suggested that I ignored comments or that others should ignore comments.

I'll also note that I said I knew how to proceed with minimal disruption, not that I did. I've learned a lot over the last few months; But the disruption involved in the RfC and now at RfAr was heat in the kitchen: unavoidable without creating lumps in the carpet. However, it's not uncommon on Wikipedia that decisions get made by involved editors, by rough consensus or even raw majority or even sometimes less than that, but merely by a few editors willing to edit war or do whatever it takes, and so following WP:DR may be "disruptive." However, done properly, it is minimally disruptive. So you are correct, escalation is "disruptive," particularly at the higher levels, and there must be some issue of weight to justify that. I see crap all the time that I don't do anything about because the issue simply isn't worth it. In the present matter, there was lots of low-level discussion on the blacklistings, but only in what might be called "courts of first impression." There was also talk page discussion, which is level two of DR, where notice and focus of attention is narrow ("minimal disruption"); there was involvement of a few editors at this point. There was a report at AN when no regular blacklist/whitelist admin -- there are very few -- was willing to close requests after substantial time (two weeks should be enough for a decision!). If you will notice, the AN report was neutral, did not solicit any particular close, just a close by a neutral administrator. In fact, at no point were the actual blacklistings taken beyond the lowest levels of WP:DR; quite simply, they were resolved at the lowest level through normal process, so far. Just remember one blacklisting is still, to my mind, an open issue.

(I refer to http://newenergytimes.com and the whitelisted http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf). The blacklisting of lenr-canr.org has not yet been challenged beyond the initial request for removal. More on that below. Procedurally, there will probably be a few more whitelisting requests here, because lenr-canr.org is globally blacklisted, at meta, and meta is outside our normal process. When there are several whitelisted pages here, then a contact would be initiated with the last closing admin at meta, asking for a reversal. By that time, we may have better guidance from ArbComm about the issue of using the blacklist for content control. It's also possible that by that time we will have a local whitelisting for the whole site, which will make the global blacklisting moot for us. If the admin grants the request, done. If the request is unreasonably denied in my opinion or that of whoever is making the request, then DR process at meta would be followed, and I haven't the foggiest idea how to do that yet, and I'd probably leave it to meta specialists.)

Now, as to the frequent claim that this whole affair is about me ignoring consensus, there were the following places where the blacklistings were actually considered, setting aside discussions in various places where conclusions on blacklisting are not reached and where blacklisting issues may have been mentioned as relevant to some other discussion or process:


 * 1) Appeal of JzG unilateral, non-discussed local blacklisting of lenr-canr.org: substantial opinion was expressed that the blacklisting was improper, I have no idea what a neutral close on the issue as been; the discussion became moot because of global blacklisting; technically, lenr-canr.org was delisted here, by Beetstra, so one might call this a "success" for the delisting request, but the basis for delisting was the meta blacklisting, not a decision on the merits. Wasted extensive discussion!
 * 2) Appeal of the original blacklisting at meta, which had been done with no opportunity for comment from those who might dissent, no notice, just JzG asking for blacklisting from other blacklist admins whom he regularly works with and who obviously trust him; the original blacklisting was granted without normal evidence being provided, or any awareness that it was currently being debated at en.wikipedia. I've watched a lot of blacklisting processes now.... most, by the way, are totally proper, there are only a few problems, but process for dealing with the problems, in technical terms, sucks. This appeal, after considerable debate, was closed by User:Mike.lifeguared as a decline to remove, based on content issues; and this is a position generally rejected here. Blacklist policy at meta isn't being followed, for it requires linkspam at a level that can't be addressed with less drastic measures. And this has not been appealed. Yet. There has not been and is no disruption at meta.
 * 3) Consideration at meta of blacklisting of newenergytimes.com, based on a suggestion by Beetstra. User:Mike.lifeguard declined to blacklist.
 * 4) Initial appeal of blacklisting locally of JzG's blacklisting of newenergytimes.com here, which was done with no actual notice at all, only speculative possibility listed in his "notice for transparency." Lots of debate; I'd claim preponderance of comments and arguments were for delisting, but Beetstra declined to delist. He gave content arguments. He generally accepted that there hadn't been sufficient linkspam (if any!) to justify blacklisting on that basis, which is the only basis considered by guidelines to justify blacklisting. So this was ripe for appeal. However, I discussed this extensively with Beetstra, and that process was incomplete. It was interrupted when Beetstra, though he discusses at length with some depth, and usually with reasonable civility, started suggesting I should be topic-banned based on discussions with him. So I went to the blacklist page and, now knowing much more of the issues and having become very clear on the application of guidelines and policies to it, requested delisting. Others were saying to me (including you!, as I recall, above) that I should first get some whitelistings, which is the strategy I've been following -- only the first baby steps! -- with lenr-canr.org, but I saw the time as ripe for newenergytimes.com to go for much simpler and less disruptive process: outright delisting. It worked, Bilby. And should someone try to reverse it, which is just fine, WP:DR is there for them as well as for me, and you will never see me complaining about someone actually following WP:DR, I'm pretty confident what the outcome would be. WP:DR usually resolves disputes quickly with very few editors being involved. (But I don't do it unless there is an issue worth the effort).
 * 5) Request for delisting based on new, much simpler arguments. Sat for two weeks no action. I've seen this before with delisting requests. Blacklist admins seem to be very reluctant to undo a decision by someone they work with regularly. That may be why an appeal for a neutral admin at AN was necessary, or maybe the few admins who watch that page were busy. Result: delisting. I considered this probable. If it had not been delisted, I'd have requested the declining admin to reverse the decision, and, depending on response, might have involved another editor. However, since this would be content dispute, and unless the admin were abusive, there would have then been, probably, a content RfC, not a user RfC. Etc. Slow escalation, with plenty of opportunity for resolutions to appear. As I said, they usually do, and I've only filed one user RfC, ever. I'd say that it was successful, even though local consensus was throwing the proverbial book at me. It clarified the issues, making the time ripe for an appeal to ArbComm; once again, my first case where I'm a named party. One might note the unusual level of agreement and clarity among the administrators for accepting the case. That's because, I'd say, WP:DR was followed. JzG filed a related RfAr that was declined precisely because WP:DR had not been followed. I know what I'm doing.

So, just how "supported" were JzG's actions with this? I read this as very iffy. There is only one of the two blacklisting actions that has been extensively "litigated," and the result was delisting. Look at all the discussion that was apparently necessary to accomplish this. The blacklisting was highly disruptive, and the rest was fallout. Indeed, one antispam volunteer, MER-C had an image of a nuclear detonation on his user page. WikiProject Spam still has an image of a battleship firing all its guns, and a section that is a rather biased interpretation of WP:AGF, another story for another day. (The obligation to AGF isn't negated by the simple existence of evidence to the contrary; protecting the project does not generally require a conclusion of bad faith. If someone is adding a hundred links to a web site today, I would not have to assume bad faith to interrupt that, it's like any other problematic edit. But antispam volunteers tend to develop a battlefield mentality, I've been told by one admin with extensive antispam experience.)

Later, JzG edit warred over the usage of the whitelisted link, a whole other story.... he lost, though it might have looked for a few weeks that he prevailed. I don't edit war, even when I'm quite confident that the community will ultimately confirm my position. Instead, I worked on developing consensus, painstakingly, practically excruciatingly, and the result was a deconstruction of the arguments against using the link, with general consensus on what was important about it.

One problem is, Bilby, that too many editors, instead of dealing straight-on with a dispute, a difference of opinion, with DR process, will go to AN/I and complain about the opposing editor. I consider AN/I to be quite a hazardous venue, erratic, difficult to predict, and usable only in emergencies. It's the 911 of Wikipedia, properly, and should not be used as a place to deliberate content issues, or, indeed, anything but dealing with emergencies, and when it does, it often goes astray. Too often, as well, editors at AN/I will divert attention from behavioral issues by debating content, thus entering areas where debate may be endless (in that hot environment), and an urgent request re behavior is ignored.

Good example of AN/I breakdown: admin closed AfD because of abusive renom. Nominator reverted admin. Admin went to AN/I for assistance: tools could not be used because admin was involved. The AN/I report saw no response but instead deletionist editors began debating the content issue. Meanwhile, comments started pouring into the AfD, so closing it became impossible. The AfD turned into a massive debate over what was, after all, a marginal article! Huge disruption, which could have been avoided if AN/I were functional. Indeed, were I that administrator, with my clear hindsight, I'd have reclosed the AfD, protected it, and then immediately recused myself from further action with a report to AN/I over what I'd done. I would have ignored the rule about recusal under an argument of emergency, under WP:IAR, it being a good example of that. See User:Abd/MKR incident. The nominating editor who'd caused all the fuss? User:Killerofcruft, later named User:Allemandtando, aka User:Fredrick day, a banned editor. That escapade could have been nipped in the bud right there! --Abd (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be some confusion in that the original blacklistings are examples of an administrator using tools while involved. That's a procedural, behavioral issue. The blacklistings themselves are content issues. There has been no RfC on the content issue, though I'm quite confident about what it would show: the result of the present delisting request. The community doesn't like the use of the blacklist to control content, absent serious linkspam. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009

Barnstar
Well, "fraudulent purpose" I don't quite understand here, but, hey, I'll take it, I haven't gotten many barnstars. Meanwhile, Ikip, I've suggested to AMIB that you guys try to develop some kind of working relationship. Senseless conflict seriously damages the project, and if some kind of mutual respect develops, we all benefit. You might notice a difference here from another case, currently before ArbComm: when I wrote about recusal, AMIB responded. Immediately. Hence the possibility of this ending up at ArbComm over his error went to zero. He was already pretty safe because he took it to ANI directly, and though we can certainly criticize some of his actions, we all get to make mistakes. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your debate on User talk:Beetstra
Abd, you have been told by multiple people that you need to stop other people's time by your endless argumentative posts. Now, after all the warnings coming from the RfC, you have opened up yet another of those disputes at User talk:Beetstra. This is disruptive behaviour. I am now formally warning you: stop these excessive and time-wasting futile debates. If I see you continuing these, I will block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that Beetstra has consented to further discussion. I'd said that we were done. If Beetstra permits it, I will continue discussion with him. If not, I'm done there. I'm not going to edit the page again without his explicit permission. Beetstra and I have long been discussing some of these issues, and those discussions have resulted in agreements that have been useful for the project. I was surprised and distressed by his comments about banning me. Since we have been able to discuss and resolve issues in the past (including ones where he expressed irritation at first) I assumed we could do that again. As you know, I wasn't officially warned by the comments at the RfC, but I am now, by you. Thanks for the warning, it makes things clear and easier in certain ways, and you have also made your personal view even more clear than they were before, and that, too, is useful. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to complicate things, but I consider Fut.Perf.'s warning to be without merit. There is an RfC in progress. Abd decided to discuss an issue arising from it, on Beetsta's talk page.  Beetstra replied and discussion continued.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's just like this discussion on my talk page, and like many, many discussions where users decide to discuss issues arising from article content discussions or from other discussions, on user talk pages.  It's often good to do it that way, so that the discussion doesn't take up too much space in the venue used by more people.  Whether Abd posts to Beetstra's talk page should be pretty much up to Beetstra to decide. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise, I apologize for the tone of my message. I was tired when I posted it; I considered it to be addressed "to whom it may concern" rather than either to you or to Abd; and I didn't stop to think how it would sound to you. It would have been better if, instead of "without merit", I had said something like "Future Perfect, I would like to gently suggest that you reconsider your warning."  Abd, it wasn't intended as advice to ignore the warning. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When warned by an admin who could block, I don't judge that it is "without merit" unless I have a critical interest that must be defended, immediately, for the welfare of the project. That's rare. It's up to Beetstra. He set this in motion by referring to the discussion in the RfC as if it were justification for a ban. I know Beetstra, he can be hot-headed for a short time. He generally cools down and does the right thing. Beetstra has been a great help in two ways: he's patiently worked with me to help me understand the blacklisting process, he whitelisted a lenr-canr.org link, lyrikline.org's English home page, and the University of Atlanta. The latter was problematic, though still correct, and, in fact, was the least important to me. Beetstra disagrees, still, on a number of important issues. But I've considered him a partner, which is why the "ban" stuff was shocking. There may be things going on that are not visible. I'm not exercised about it, I'm just dealing with it. It's been a good day, as far as I'm concerned. As soon as I think that this or that must happen, or this or that must not happen, I'd be dead meat. WP:Eventualism. Or, take two WP:DGAFs and call me in the morning. Thanks, Coppertwig, for all your support, it's deeply appreciated.
 * The rest of this is the rambling of a deranged editor on his own Talk page. Please see the warning at the top of this page and take it seriously. Do not read this unless you are prepared to digest it, otherwise parts of it may be destabilizing, you may not understand it and then project your own meanings onto it.


 * I should say that where Beetstra and I disagree still, it is on positions fairly common among those involved with the blacklist. My opinion is that those positions will not be sustained if examined by the larger community. But I have not pushed it, except in one very small way. When my request for the whitelisting of lyrikline.org sat for a long time with no action, but with no cogent argument against whitelisting it, I went to AN requesting administrative assistance (any admin could decide on the whitelisting). One of the blacklist regulars, however, declined it then, citing the bankrupt copyright argument. Beetstra, who had been requiring that wikiprojects be informed and that they make the decision, and I'd jumped through all those hoops with the normal response (none), finally just did it. He still claims that the global blacklisting was appropriate, but he's claiming, if I understand him correctly, secret evidence. I'll discuss that with him further, assuming that the present problem passes, and I know how to deal with that; my point here is that I'm doing nothing without exercising caution to prevent damage to the project, including disruption by raising an issue that might upset the blacklisting applecart. Certain administrators will still try to claim that I'm being disruptive, but that's what one expects when walking into the kitchen. Heat.
 * I can't say that I'm surprised about the initial response to the RfC, it is SOP for certain admins. But it is remarkably blatant, I didn't expect the degree of ... I don't know what to call it. Don't they know that this is all visible, and that, barring JzG turning around, and I waited months hoping for that, this will all be seen by ArbComm, who may take a dim view of what is, in fact, disruption of an RfC? The warning about Beetstra I'd describe as an act of desperation, there must be some reason to block this arrogant upstart. I don't know how deep the political currents run, but I think it likely that Beetstra will come around, he has in the past. Many of the other commenters calling for my ban are utterly unsurprising. But, Coppertwig, you know this: the RfC isn't about my behavior, and I could be Jerk Number One and get banned later today, and it wouldn't change the outcome of this. It's not about me, the RfC is about JzG, and sooner or later that will become clear.
 * JzG expresses amazement and wonder, and speculates that I must be autistic. You know what would happen if I said that about him! But, the fact is, I do have a developmental disorder, it's emblazoned on my user page, ADHD. ADHD is a mixed bag; there are many varieties, but my particular situation isn't marginal and it isn't atypical. Very, very smart, and very likely to violate Abd/Rule 0. Socrates. We ask questions that people don't like. Don't we know better than to ask questions like that? Actually, we don't! It's complicated. The sum of it is that if everyone was like me, it would be a disaster. But if nobody is like me in any society or community, the community becomes paralyzed, unable to change. Thom Hartmann and others think it's a genetic variation, and there is definitely a genetic component. In any case, I can see stuff that most people can't. And, for that gain, if it's a gain, there are losses, that's why it's a "disorder."
 * (See []) One of the things that happens commonly is that I hold multiple POVs on any subject. It is not unusual that people impute motives for what I'm writing that actually are absent, but they assume that someone who would write BC must have preceding motive A, and what they assume might be appropriate for a "normal person." I'm not normal. An example might be the evidence page that was the underlying basis for the RfC. It was simply a list of actions, and it wasn't cherry-picked, it was complete as to each page edited and the (extensive) period covered. Yet that was called an "attack page." Isn't that fascinating? In the other direction, when I was blocked, and I asked for the basis, I was told, Special:Contributions/Abd. That was probably a pretty honest answer.
 * JzG seems to be unable to comprehend that when I questioned his blacklisting on the basis that he was involved, maybe I was questioning his blacklisting on the basis that he was involved. Rather, it appears, he assumed that I was defending Rothwell or pushing some POV, and he knew me well enough to be quite puzzled by it, and I think the puzzlement was genuine. This, however, is not something that I could explain to him, under present conditions. It's like what happened when I explained to ScienceApologist how he could make those helpful little edits without violating his ban. I got flak for that as well, I was, supposedly, trolling. Actually, I was doing two things at the same time: being helpful, in case he was sincere, and testing whether he was sincere or not. He wasn't, his goal was disruption and to trap admins into blocking him, and this became totally obvious, so he was blocked and banned for six months. I think he imagined that this would trigger a revolt of the masses. His friends led him down the rosy path. JzG's friends are doing the same for him, I was the only "friend" who was straight with him, but he's got so many friends of the wrong kind -- the kind that won't tell you when you are making a mistake -- that he ultimately concluded I was deranged.
 * Maybe I am, after all. Are deranged people allowed to edit Wikipedia?
 * Reminds me, I offered to help ScienceApologist edit an article here to FA status. I want to see how he responded, I'll have to go to Wikisource. (Someone else may already have done it.) --Abd (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, brevity is the soul of wit. It will change your life if you ever make an effort to understand the emotions and perceptions that cause you to be verbose rather than brief.


 * Yours in hope and Shakespeare,


 * Phil153 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you may not like me verbose, but I'm pretty sure you would more strongly dislike me brief, and you may have more opportunity to observe that soon; for starters, consider the present RfC. When I'm brief, it's because I've spent hours honing the text, the image is appropriate. It becomes sharp, designed to penetrate when applied. This is my Talk page. Would you come into my room and tell me I'm talking too much? If so, go away. If you have something helpful to say, come back when you are ready for that.--Abd (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re appreciating my support: I'm very pleased to hear you say that, because it's an honour to be able to be of assistance to you. I can see the direction you're headed: not as clearly as you can, but clearly enough to want to be involved.  As I see it, your goal is to help make Wikipedia more cooperative, NPOV, organized, welcoming and efficient. In a word, your goal is consensus (a word that is dotted all over your talk page).  My goals are essentially the same; but you have the insight to know how to move in that direction. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on this
I saw the above warning, and I think that some clarification of some points and thoughts is in place (I answered your e-mail regarding this issue). I think it should be restricted to the long remarks and some type of remarks. I would like to suggest you something there, to which I will come later on. Unfortunately I am afraid this will be a long remark, where I should maybe have followed my own suggestion (we can copy this to a specified page then). I hope you don't mind....

Abd, we disagree on certain basic things, and we have encounters in several areas. First some points, generally regarding all cases where we both are involved in. Although we have to assume good faith, and we have to see merits and proper use, we should not forget:


 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) Information should be properly sourced.
 * 3) There is a huge grey area between self promotion and improving the wikipedia.
 * 4) Similarly, there is a huge grey area between sourcing and properly sourcing.
 * 5) Although good faith is a good thing, there are editors, many unfortunately, whose main goal is to use wikipedia for their own goals.

Now some specifics on cases where we worked together.


 * 1) With the University of Atlanta we saw (and still see) that some editors try to push their POV and promote their organisation.  That does not mean that behind that there can be a good and proper article, but, unfortunately, we have to take disruptive measures to keep other disruptive editors out: blacklisting of sites, protection of pages, abuse filters, blocking of editors.  Finding an optimum there is showing the limits of Wikipedia in these, and we seem to have to fight to keep some articles in a good shape.  Good faith, yes, but not (yet) from their site ..
 * 2) Sometimes it is unclear what the goal of an editor is.  See lyrikline.org.  We assume that the editor that was placing his links was indeed 'trying to improve wikipedia', but unfortunately this was deemed otherwise, as, and I still argue that, the linkplacing was in a lot of cases inappropriate (placing a link to an English version of a page on a Farsi Wiki where there is of that document a Farsi version available, or placing a link to an English version of a page on a non-English wiki where there is no version of that document available in that language (noting here our external links guideline on languages!), etc. etc., then that at least shows that the editor was simply performing copy-paste and not taking local policies into account).  You do however show that there are cases where the links do add to articles, and your latest edits show proper use, both as external links and as references (thanks for that!).  However, it is in all cases better to avoid any form of, even suggestion of, a conflict of interest, and discuss first.  If there seems to be a conflict of interest, or inappropriate ways of linking, then measures may be in place.  They may be too fast sometimes (as editors sometimes do turn into discussing editors), but I have been involved in cases where an editor first made 10 socks (which were all warned, blocked, and reverted) before he understood and went on discussing.  I haven't checked lately, but I think they is a good editor now.  If there are suggestions of COI (even without proof of it!), then such accounts can be blocked (policies clearly allow that!).  If there is COI involved, then that becomes only more appropriate.  I want to note here, that we have some 'COI-editors' who are very, very useful in improving wikipedia, but I have also seen cases of editors who never got it, never.
 * 3) I am combining lenr-canr.com and newenergytimes.com.  I have to say that I did not fully investigate the contents of these sites, but some thoughts from my site.
 * 4) The sites contain copies of documents.  For some of these the copy is the only online version, for others it is not.
 * 5) Some documents are editorialised.  They contain a preface, or other things.
 * 6) The bigger publishing bodies have a copyright on their documentation.  When we, authors, publish in Science, Nature, Chemical Reviews, name it, we don't have the right to do with those documents what we want, the copyright is with the publishing body.
 * 7) Knowing that, I presume (but I did not fully investigate) that most of the 'copies' of published papers are by smaller publishing bodies, where the publishing rules are lower (lesseasier peer-review, etc.).  I have no proof here, and it does by no means mean that the data is not OK, not true, or whatever.  However, we have to be significantly more careful with it, as it may be on a way to 'fringe' type science (but it does not have to be!).
 * 8) If it is a copy of a document that has been published elsewhere, and there is a copy available on one of these sites, then the reference should clearly reflect that, or leave it out.  Proper sourcing methods are:
 * 9) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989
 * 10) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989 + link to original press conference
 * 11) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989 - An online copy of this document is available at newenergytimes.com
 * 12) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989 - An online copy of this document is available at newenergytimes.com [ www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/UniversityOfUtahPressRelease.htm ]
 * 13) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989 + link to original press conference - An online copy of this document is available at newenergytimes.com
 * 14) University of Utah N-Fusion Press Release "'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR FIRST TIME", March 23, 1989 + link to original press conference - An online copy of this document is available at newenergytimes.com [ www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/UniversityOfUtahPressRelease.htm ]
 * 15) [ www.newenergytimes.com/Reports/UniversityOfUtahPressRelease.htm New Energy Times]
 * The first six are perfectly acceptable. They all 6 give the editor the possibility to check the reference, with or without a link to the document, and, where newenergytimes is mentioned, they tell that the online version on newenergytimes.com is a copy of the original.  However, the latter one is totally not acceptable.  Why?  As it a) the editor not see it is a copy, and believes the data as correct, where it would need checking, b) he is unable to easily verify the original document is the same as the copy.  And actually, the ones which both link to the original and the copy are IMHO preferred.  However, it is NOT true, in no way, that the very first one here is not making the data referenced, or that it inhibits or stops discussing those references, or that linking only to the original makes discussion difficult or impossible.  ALL external links, even to original documents are convenience links.  Leaving out a link (even if you can't follow it yourself) to the original document, but providing a link to the copy is IMHO also not the best practice (example 4, in cases where there would be a link available to the original).  However, it is nice to have them both, and they are certainly useful.  Yet, for these sites I have seen cases of 4 and 7.
 * Concluding on this, I am afraid that the copies on lenr-canr.org/newenergytimes.com are not always the highest level available, or are the most reliable resources (I have italicised a couple of words for stress, I do NOT mean that the data is not reliable, or that it is not the highest information available, there may be no higher level information available, and I do not mean that the data is NOT useable at all). I see however in the link-use of certain editors that they do not link AT ALL to any official publishing body, only to copies on these two sites.  Indeed, calling them fringe sites goes far, but I am afraid that editors who only use these sites may be very, very close to giving undue weight to this information, which does have an effect on the in wikipedia included information.  When such copies are used more than the original data, then disabling the use of such sites would not result in enforcing the POV of the editor who blacklists (as the material can still be referenced, blacklisting does NOT achieve that!), however, it might result in a more neutral and proper way of referencing.  A thin line?

Regarding long posts and certain types of posts. I am very strongly urging you the following:


 * 1) Keep posts on talkpages concise, short, say less than 250 words.  If you have more points, start a page in your userspace, write out the things in a way that they can be commented, multiple short sections etc. and refer to that in the discussion.
 * 2) Do NOT again, ever, threaten (even indirectly), or 'attack' administrative decissions without asking first!  Examples of that are remarks like "the block based on the user name was a total error" in an opening post regarding the block.  Even if you are right, such remarks are unnecesserily threatening or abusive.  I am sorry, but before you make those type of remarks, you'd better be able to show that you have discussed it first with the admin in question, you may have missed evidence, or there may be other reasons which are well within policy and guideline.  These remarks are just not productive, bitey, and do not encourage a helpful response.

I hope I finished with this post (I might have forgotten things, or have to rewrite parts ..), but I hope I show where I am going and where my thoughts regarding this are: we are in a grey area of interpretation which will never be black-and-white. I can't read JzG's mind, I will leave that to him, though I'd like to see his thoughts on this.

--Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll begin my response below, in subsections per topics, quoting. --Abd (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Groundrules and accepted background
Italics, or not indented, from Beetstra: ''I saw the above warning, and I think that some clarification of some points and thoughts is in place (I answered your e-mail regarding this issue). I think it should be restricted to the long remarks and some type of remarks. I would like to suggest you something there, to which I will come later on. Unfortunately I am afraid this will be a long remark, where I should maybe have followed my own suggestion (we can copy this to a specified page then). I hope you don't mind....

''Abd, we disagree on certain basic things, and we have encounters in several areas.
 * Actually, Beetstra, to my knowledge, while we certainly have unresolved disagreements, we have no "encounters" in the sense of active disputes, disagreements where I'd have gone beyond simply continuing to discuss. Yesterday, I remarked that the closure of the lenr-canr.org delisting request wasn't "proper." But I never challenged that, and this isn't an attack, your decision was reasonable, and basically, the "appeal" of the closure would for me to file a whitelisting request. Before that could be done, I needed to prepare the ground, so to speak, by encouraging, in various places, examination of subissues. That's probably done, and the time may be ripe. So why was the closure "improper"? Because the blacklisting should have been examined on the merits, and if appropriate, if the blacklisting wasn't proper, then, given the meta blacklisting, the site should have been locally whitelisted, instead of starting a whole new discussion. I.e., a decision on the merits would have been "best." Because that decision was never made, JzG can then, as he has, claim that the matter was examined and my position rejected. He can make that claim about meta, but not about our project. Hindsight, Beetstra. Don't leave home without it.

''First some points, generally regarding all cases where we both are involved in. Although we have to assume good faith, and we have to see merits and proper use, we should not forget:


 * 1) ''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) ''Information should be properly sourced.
 * 3) ''There is a huge grey area between self promotion and improving the wikipedia.
 * 4) ''imilarly, there is a huge grey area between sourcing and properly sourcing.
 * 5) ''Although good faith is a good thing, there are editors, many unfortunately, whose main goal is to use wikipedia for their own goals.


 * The background is totally accepted and understood. We will need to examine how these apply to the specific situations.

''Now some specifics on cases where we worked together.


 * Continued below. --Abd (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta

 * 1) With the University of Atlanta we saw (and still see) that some editors try to push their POV and promote their organisation.  That does not mean that behind that there can be a good and proper article, but, unfortunately, we have to take disruptive'' measures to keep other disruptive editors out: blacklisting of sites, protection of pages, abuse filters, blocking of editors.  Finding an optimum there is showing the limits of Wikipedia in these, and we seem to have to fight to keep some articles in a good shape.  Good faith, yes, but not (yet) from their site ..


 * This was an example, I believe, of successful cooperation. I noticed the blacklisting (I think there was a delisting request from the school?), and it seemed to be inadequately founded. I dealt with the article by stubbing it, as I recall. You originally delisted it, but when problems appeared, with probably SEO edits to add more links to the article, you relisted and whitelisted the home page. This was a reasonable response. The article has greatly benefited from the attention. However, I'd argue that semiprotecting that article would have been a better response, unless links were being added in other places, at levels not addressable without the blacklist. The problems at the UofA article, that continued, were not strictly linkspamming, they were blatant COI IP edits, which is routinely addressed with semipro. I don't know about the other possible spamming, that's your department. I trust you, Beetstra, which does not mean that I always agree, but I know you do good work. --Abd (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind I already answer, have to go soon (back tomorrow), feel free to move this down. True, semiprotecting may have had a better solution then blacklisting.  But what I also meant to show with this example are the following: there is no end to POV pushing, spamming, vandalism in some cases.  This is not a too-long-ago example, there are cases which have run on for years, one page just got de-protected three weeks ago (after a year semi-protecting), and the POV pusher is already back.  Another case has 15 or so links blacklisted on meta, then I started mailing the university hosting the spammer, which still took 2 warnings and a ban of the spammer by the university to make it stop.  All measures (abusefilter, blacklisting, semi or full protection, blocking of users/IPs) possibly disrupt editing for others, sometimes tweaking is possible, and we may make a mistake sometimes, though, hoping that I am not violating 'beans' for the University of Atlanta editors, I can think of ways around semi-protection and now abusefilter which would then be caught by the spam-blacklist .. they are not a solution alone, they can be complementary.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the idea here is to give each topic its own section, so that we can find consensus or (probably unlikely) agree to disagree on some point. No rush, there is no deadline. The point is that the blacklist is a blunt instrument, and that semiprotection, which only affects IP or new editors for one article, is a minimalist response. Periodically, it might be removed for a time, see what happens. I can see having some organized watch on particular articles so that COI edits are caught, but, unless I miss my guess, there wasn't widespread "spamming" of UofA URL. If there was, the picture changes, and blacklisting can become much more appropriate. Absolutely, if my considerations here depended upon the UofA being cooperative, I'd have egg all over my face. But it doesn't. The blacklisting is relatively harmless; I have a long-term issue with the principles involved, but we will get to that. Basically, to me, the answer is more efficient process that is, at the same time, more flexible, and that follows the general editorial policy that admins don't make content decisions, decisions are made by consensus in situ, so that editors familiar with an article or otherwise deciding to participate there are the ones making the decisions, and admin action is only taken with respect to behavioral issues and to facilitate consensus. In practice, here, the blacklisting does little or no harm. Bu that should not be a general solution, in the absence of serious linkspam. Just like the guideline says, Beetstra. The guideline is right. But the guideline does not address certain issues, hence our conversation, or I'd be immediately escalating, looking for guideline confirmation from the community.


 * So my comments aren't a "dispute" between us about UofA. There is a broader unresolved issue, is how I'd put it, about the purpose of the guideline and how to implement that purpose. You are the expert on the action operation of the blacklist, and the realities of linkspam; my concern is overall editorial process and preserving maximum freedom of editors to edit articles in good faith. So we will get back to this. My goal is twofold: protection of the project from spam, by which I mean useless or massively inappropriate links, where ordinary editorial vigilance isn't efficient, and, on the other hand, facilitating the addition of links in good faith by ordinary editors. To expect these editors to ask for whitelising is unrealistic, quite simply, it will not usually happen. As you know from other discussions, I think I have some solutions, and I'd rather hammer them out with you than to just dump them on an unsuspecting community; when the community isn't prepared or those approaching it have not prepared some reasonable proposed consensus, it can make really bad decisions, it's to be expected.


 * So any time you can put in here is appreciated. It's voluntary, and others might take your place. I write a lot, but it should never be a burden, that's what some of the critics miss. If it ever came to pass that I have to put some warning or official notice on your Talk page (unlikely, I assume), I'd be the soul of brevity, all business. You can look at the notice of the RfC to JzG, I put on his page, and I didn't argue with him about it, in spite of provocative temptations. Look at the RfC itself, and compare it, say, with the ramblings of Requests for comment/GoRight, the first RfC I participated in -- only because I helped get it certified and then made the mistake of actually reading it. I was horrified. It's astonishing to read the wikilawyering in the present RfC, to try to decertify it, compared with what was tolerated there. (On the other hand, Beetstra, I think Jehochman was having a bad day. In some ways he is like you, he'll react strongly, then, next day, comes up with something far more reasonable; he withdrew his certification attempt and has once again returned to being quite helpful.) I usually know when to switch modes, but I also sometimes overestimate the willingness of an editor to discuss something in depth. I don't generally, any more, make that mistake more than once. "Discussion," to me, is more expansive and open than debate. I can mention coffee, or the weather; done right, these things build rapport. Done wrong, well, it's better than a punch in the nose! Nobody has to read it, tl;dr is a perfectly good defense where a request was not clear due to length. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Good.  I hope we can get to some agreements, and I hope I can make you see that the solutions that are chosen have their own difficulties and problems.  I presume we are getting to the core here pretty quickly..
 * For as far as I can see, you are right, there has not been 'widespread' spamming of the link. However, and I am really surprised that that has not happened yet, I can find at least 3 possible targets to disrupt here.  I now have to stuff the beans, I will consider to rewrite the filter that is keeping this out (though I don't expect them to see this item here): University of Atlanta is now protected against the promotional language, and it is watched.  But, lets assume that the blacklisting would not be there, there is nothing against replacing University of Atlanta on U of A with University of Atlanta (or something similar).  Also, there is nothing against putting a promotional section on that page (OK, it would be reverted .. though disambig pages often don't have a lot of editor keeping an eye on them).  A solution there now could be to also protect that one, there are not that many appropriate edits to it, but it will block a lot of good faith editors (e.g. from Amsterdam, Adelaide, Albequerqy, de Achterhoek, Afghanistan, Arts ..) adding their University of .. (Unicyclists of .., ...), or Unit of Account (Awfullness, Aberation, ..).  So the collateral damage grows.  Other pages which could be hit?  Atlanta?  ( ==University of Atlanta== The University of Atlanta is the acclaimed university blah blah blah )  Georgia (state)?  And protecting those latter ones is certainly not a good option.
 * One of the pushy accounts on University of Atlanta is now an autoconfirmed account. That editor can edit semi-protected pages.  And there is nothing that witholds them from creating more socks, doing some zero-edits on some unrelated documents, wait a week or two, and start editing the semi-protected page... We could of course block and block and block ..
 * And that is another solution, block the accounts and IPs. Well some editors have the availability about a almost infinite list of IPs, and accounts come cheap until we start checkusering them (which may catch all ..).  Blocking whole ranges has its own problem, especially if they start using one of America's main ISPs.
 * Specific, protecting a page. University of Atlanta can be protected to keep out the promotional edits, but that also keeps out all other editors.  We have, according to our statistics, (only) 160.000 active users, 10 million registered users.  The number of still registerable accounts is practically unlimited, as are the number of possible users behind an IP.  That group is BIG.  You say, that protecting a page is not disrupting, but what if the eldest son of the King of Far Far Away is getting his degree from University of Atlanta.  The son is likely to become a notable person, worthy of an article.  Now one of his fellow students knows this, plays around on the world wide web, encounters University of Atlanta .. but he can't add his info (it is a good addition ..).  We might now have lost another possible new editor .. :-(
 * Now, blacklisting uofa.edu is not giving a lot of collateral damage, the page is not widely useable, though there may be cases on e.g. some notable alumni somewhere which can't be referenced etc. (again on the page about the eldest son of the King of Far Far Away).
 * In my opinion, we now established that:
 * Protecting the page can give collateral damage, and there may be ways around it, and may not be enough.
 * Blacklisting a link can give collateral damage, and there are still ways around it.
 * Blocking accounts can stop things, but there are also limits to that.
 * The combination of the three may help better, but for hard-core spammers (other ones), I have seen inventive ways .. (for those, redirect sites like tinyurl are even meta-blacklisted without abuse).
 * So we get closer to the key question: what is spam, and is the spam-blacklist for spam only (I hope Jehochman is reading with me ..)? I am running forward as I am addressing this together with lyrikline.de, newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org
 * Is uofa.edu spam? NO!  The link is of an accredited, notable university, will probably contain good, reliable information, etc. etc.  However, it was here used almost completely in a promotional ('spammy') way!  Does it belong on a spam-blacklist.  Hmmm .. well, it is not spam, but its use and the persistence of its use needs to be stopped somehow.  However we turn it, we will need a combination of methods to keep things clean.  With the abusefilter now we can be more specific, but turning that on on Atlanta may give more collateral damage, and until now the AbuseFilter is not strong enough to protect every case we have.  Moving on, is lyrikline.org spam?  NO!  But the accounts adding it to many wikis did have a conflict of interest, and their link-additions were with on certainty bordering propability inappropriate (we'll discuss that further below), protecting pages and blocking editors (besides a cross-wiki impossibility) is an impossible solution which gives major disruption to many places (especially the protection), so blacklisting to stop the 'emergency' was certainly appropriate (and possibly the only real solution) to stop that.  Is newenergytimes.com spam?  NO!  However, it was added cross-wiki by an IP, user:76.126.194.190, in a way which looks promotional (most are the main domain added to the pages of Cold Fusion on a couple of languages).  These additions were spammy, and if there were no other edits than that, then that certainly could have been a reason to blacklist it (though we tend to be more careful with it).  Should it be on the spam-blacklist ... hmm ...  Is lenr-canr.org spam?  NO!  However, it was used to promote a point by an editor who had a large preference for the publications on lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes over the originals.  Should lenr-canr.org be on the spam-blacklist?  Hmmm.  But we'll get to lyrikline.org, newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org below for a more in depth analysis.
 * So simply, the question, 'what is spam' has white and black answers, and quite some grey answers. We have here 4 links which are grey, they are not spam in content, but all 4 of them were added inappropriately, some clearly for promotional reasons, others possibly for genuine reasons, but with a doubt of promotion, others which were besides being added properly, also seemingly promotional, and/or to push a view.  Was the use disrupting?  Was it promoting?  Was it genuine?  Would solution A work, solution B, solution C?  Or a combination of solutions?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I'll jump to lenr-canr.org down below for now, as I'd like to say something there which may be of quick importance, I don't know when and if I get to the others, I'm going on holiday soon, I may not be able to give lengthy answers before May). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd--- Will you support and help me make the separations of University of Atlanta and Barrington. I believe some have personal vendetta against online schools and I can't let them just defame a school which just crawling. There unreasonable to deal with. Thanks.--Mistro12 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

newenergytimes.com
Beetstra wrote, above: ''Is newenergytimes.com spam? NO! However, it was added cross-wiki by an IP, user:76.126.194.190, in a way which looks promotional (most are the main domain added to the pages of Cold Fusion on a couple of languages). These additions were spammy, and if there were no other edits than that, then that certainly could have been a reason to blacklist it (though we tend to be more careful with it). Should it be on the spam-blacklist ... hmm ...''

As will become clear, there are several web sites that are extremely valuable sources of information on Cold fusion. NET is notable and should -- and will -- have its own article (there is RS discussing the site.) Whether or not the links added cross-wiki were made by someone COI, it, quite simply, isn't surprising to see the site referenced or externally linked. As you know, I discriminate between the use of the blacklist to stop possible spamming, and making content decisions. I would say that if there is an article on Cold fusion, it should have external links or references to NET, lenr-canr.org, and possibly a few other sites. Those sites are devoted to the field, and are closer to neutral than not (NET would certainly cover major critical news). --Abd (talk)


 * The alleged cross-wiki spam is irrelevant; this site is not globally blacklisted, the only issue would be links here.


 * See my delisting request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, and a draft article, to which I will probably add more sources before moving to mainspace, at User:Abd/New Energy Times. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the article will be on Steven Krivit, the editor of the New Energy Times, instead. In reality, it should be a toss-up (one would be redirected to the other), but the problem is a paucity of focused reviews. The web site is known and recommended as a source of news related to Cold fusion and other new energy topics (including some hot fusion news), but there is only a little source that discusses it. There is more source mentioning Krivit as an expert. (He's a journalist, not a scientist, but writers often become experts when they cover a field for a long time, as he has.) --Abd (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The only expressed reluctance to delisting seems to be on the basis that "there isn't sufficient reason to take it off the list." However, it's been acknowledged that the reason for putting it on the list in the first place was weak to non-existent (there is a current RfC over that action itself, with general recognition that, at best, the admin should not have done it himself). Hence the comment of one editor about the use of blacklisting to promote a POV seems to be cogent: by blacklisting, the admin created a presumption of continued blacklisting, with, supposedly, a consensus being required to remove it. However, any admin could remove it under the circumstances; I have not been asking for that in order to give the blacklist volunteer admins an opportunity to police their own field, so to speak.

It appears that "sufficient reason" would mean some showing that the site is reliable as a source, which is a difficult issue, one which should be made in the context of an article, by editors familiar with the issues. Making this decision on a blacklist page (or on a whitelist page for a specific link or for dealing with global blacklisting) is a very, very bad idea, and I doubt that the community will sustain it. Such decisions may be necessary and appropriate where there is a fear of linkspamming, but no linkspamming has ever been shown for the site here on Wikipedia. Occasional arguably appropriate (whether sustained or not) placement of links or references isn't linkspam, and the blacklist was not designed and should not be used to inhibit editors from making those choices.

In arguing against this, Beetstra, you have confused newenergytimes.org with lenr-canr.org, which is mostly an archive of material published elsewhere. You argue that editors can cite papers without the link, which is certainly true, though that only applies to references and not to external links for further reading. New Energy Times, though, is largely new writing, by the journalist Krivit, based on his extensive travel and interviews and research. He appears to be supported by a nonprofit foundation to do exactly this, and the reporting is professional in quality.

Both sites were, at one time, external links for Cold fusion, and, given that both sites are widely recommended as places to find reliable information about cold fusion (critical material is included or covered), that was quite appropriate, and removal of the links I would tentatively ascribed to the constant "anti-fringe" pressure on Cold fusion. ArbComm has clearly indicated that POV is not to be excluded on the basis that it is "fringe," and blacklisting the two most significant sources of cold fusion information on the internet creates an imbalance.

In addition, there is the convenience link issue. There are many citations in Cold fusion now that cannot be easily read on the internet except at one or the other of those two web sites, same as with the originally whitelisted page for lenr-canr.org. Indeed, there is another, more recent paper by Fleischmann on the same topic as one whitelisted, that is more explicit and easier for a general reader.

At this point, instead of requesting specific whitelistings for newenergytimes.com, I went ahead to request a full delisting, because of the absence of reason for blacklisting in the first place. Because of the importance of this issue (there are *many* examples, as is effectively acknowledged by a comment on the blacklist discussion underway now), my intention, if the position continues to be maintained that content arguments are relevant for blacklisting in examples like this, is to proceed under WP:DR, which begins, gradually, to allocate wider editorial resources to the decision. The issues have become relatively clear by now, it may be time to empty the can of worms and take a good look at them; but that will not happen if there is no specific issue, such as the blacklisting/delisting of newenergytimes.com. You know very well, Beetstra, how defective the original blacklisting was, yet, it appears, the community of blacklist volunteers is defending it, and the basis of defense shows what's been recently called an "exclusionist" perspective. Small group of admins, acting cooperatively (as is normal), imposing a common editorial perspective, however diffuse, using tools. The *only* arguments advanced on the blacklist page against delisting are on content issues or are seeking content arguments for delisting (i.e., "links needed for content").

This is blacklist mission creep that has been allowed to cross editorial boundaries. Consideration of need was appropriate for whitelisting (or delisting) sites where serious linkspam had occurred. Not the case here. It appears that blacklist admins have been quite happy to increase their own authority and power without modifying the guidelines and blacklist instructions to reflect this, which could then be the subject of a community discussion. If the status quo remains, that discussion will occur, up to the level necessary to find true consensus and closure. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: "The only expressed reluctance to delisting seems to be on the basis that "there isn't sufficient reason to take it off the list." (emphasis added) is similar to your contraction of the lenr-canr.org issue below, at total improper, incomplete filtration of the. I have given way more thoughts and concerns in my posts.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we now debating the debate instead of the substance? I'm not really interested in that. Issues of substance, in my view, examined below in detail: --Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are debating your improper filtrations of the debate. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Was the original blacklisting improper? Should improper blacklistings be removed by default?
If a blacklisting is made by an involved administrator, and suspected of being made out of POV bias, and absent emergency, it should be removed, without prejudice against later addition by an uninvolved administrator (which could be immediate, but that administrator is then taking responsibility for it as an immediate, out-of-process blacklisting). --Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are not a bureaucracy. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were not blacklisted, would it be?
These links were long used, they were relatively stable, particularly if we set aside the administrator's frequent removal of them from the articles. As there was no linkspamming, that, as a reason for addition, would not apply. (Linkspam is the *only* reason allowed by the guidelines, and it should be severe, not occasional possibly inappropriate links, and not addressable by means such as ordinary editing, blocks, or bots). From ArbComm decisions, "fringe" is not a legitimate reason to exclude links, in itself (but does come up in questions of balance, which would relate to overall balance of links and is a decision which cannot be made in isolation.) --Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe is not a reason to blacklist, abuse of a site to impose a fringe view on Wikipedia could be. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possibly usable as source, convenience link, or external link?
Yes. Period. It was, accepted by consensus, as far as we can tell. I have not reviewed the entire history of the usage of these links. That does not mean that there are no issues to be resolved, that NET is a generic "reliable source," as, say, the New York Times would be. It's reasonable to assert that it has a bias, so the decision re usability of any particular reference or link must be made intelligently by editors seeking consensus and balance, and not by administrators not involved, using admin tools to enforce their own abstract opinions (or even specific opinions). --Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. We agree totally on that.  We could weigh 'is it necessery', or even 'if the links are not there, does that mean that the wikipage is seriously lower in value', but those are content decissions better discussed either on appropriate talkpages or with appropriate wikiprojects.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should content arguments be relevant to blacklisting decisions?
Only in one situation: If there is clear reason for blacklisting, this must be weighed against possible damage to content; inhibiting editorial freedom prevents true consensus from arising, makes it far less likely that a link, even if appropriate, will be used. In this situation, which assumes strong reason for blacklisting as described in the guidelines, then consideration of the probability that links to a site could be usable may become relevant. Most blacklisted sites, quite simply, have little visible usage, but a library of documents on cold fusion (lenr-canr.org) and a publication dedicated to investigative and other reporting on the topic (newenergytimes.com), without any reason for blacklisting other than doubts about article balance or alleged POV? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, in blacklisting a site for linkspam, a showing of large-scale addition of links is generally provided. Sometimes a comment is made that the site doesn't seem to have appropriate use, though this is often dicta, or should be. I agree, to some extent, that a site is useless could reasonably lead to some preference for blacklisting, but that uselessness should be very clear and not controversial, and not the primary cause of the blacklisting, which would be linkspam.--Abd (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This analysis follows from the above analyses. Were the involved editors substantially using these sites to push their POV?  Was it widely used by others and in a way that it were really necessery references or more convenience links?  Or, in other words, was there a reasonably large-scale abuse of these links.  If that is deemed not to be the case, then we can consider blacklisting a possible way of 'controlling' it.  Blacklisting is not the end, we still have whitelisting available!  This is not the end of a content control (if there is any, the material can still be used, added, and referenced, only not with a working link!), specific whitelisting is also an option for those which are extending other links, or which are irreplaceable.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

http://newenergytimes.com delisted
The section header says it. Thanks for discussing this, Beetstra. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen it. If you don't mind, I will keep a close eye on the use of the link.  Also a thanks to you for discussing this, it certainly gives another view on the situation(s).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't mind, that's how Wikipedia works. --Abd (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyrikline.org
''Sometimes it is unclear what the goal of an editor is. See lyrikline.org. We assume that the editor that was placing his links was indeed 'trying to improve wikipedia', but unfortunately this was deemed otherwise, as, and I still argue that, the linkplacing was in a lot of cases inappropriate (placing a link to an English version of a page on a Farsi Wiki where there is of that document a Farsi version available, or placing a link to an English version of a page on a non-English wiki where there is no version of that document available in that language (noting here our external links guideline on languages!), etc. etc., then that at least shows that the editor was simply performing copy-paste and not taking local policies into account). You do however show that there are cases where the links do add to articles, and your latest edits show proper use, both as external links and as references (thanks for that!). However, it is in all cases better to avoid any form of, even suggestion of, a conflict of interest, and discuss first. If there seems to be a conflict of interest, or inappropriate ways of linking, then measures may be in place. They may be too fast sometimes (as editors sometimes do turn into discussing editors), but I have been involved in cases where an editor first made 10 socks (which were all warned, blocked, and reverted) before he understood and went on discussing. I haven't checked lately, but I think they is a good editor now. If there are suggestions of COI (even without proof of it!), then such accounts can be blocked (policies clearly allow that!). If there is COI involved, then that becomes only more appropriate. I want to note here, that we have some 'COI-editors' who are very, very useful in improving wikipedia, but I have also seen cases of editors who never got it, never.


 * I have called lyrikline.org a "posterboy for problematic blacklisting." I think there is a lot we could learn from examining this case and where it went astray. Which, of course, requires examining if it did go astray, and how and why.


 * We have plenty of links here which are to foreign language pages. Particularly with poets, if we have an article, and there is a site where recordings of the author exist in the original language, I'd argue that a lyrikline.org listing would be appropriate. I have now added, with no fuss, some links to German poets where there is no English translation. It's better to have a link to a German language page with resources like Lyrikline, even where there is no translation; the reader and see the original poem, translate it with Google, and hear it. As to a link added by IP to, say, the Farsi wiki to, again, a German poet. English is largely the language of the internet, people using Wikipedia who speak Farsi, many of them, will read English; and there is an English interface.


 * Conflict of interest is actually irrelevant to content. Sure, massive promotion might be reverted on site, but much very useful material comes from COI editors, routinely. COI becomes relevant when there is dispute, COI editors should stand aside and not contend, but advise from the Talk page.


 * The lyrikline blacklisting may have been appropriate because of the volume of links being added cross-wiki. You are right about "spammers" turning into helpful editors. True spammers won't do that. You have readily agreed that the term "spam" is inappropriate, but I'm coming to think that the term is useful. But not as it has been used. It should be reserved for spam! A single link is never spam. It may be unwanted, COI, POV, etc. But a blacklist is not needed to deal with a few links. And when we call someone a "spammer" who may honestly feel that what they are doing is helpful, we are building reservoirs of ill-will. I am first of all concerned about lyrikline.org here on en.wikipedia. Deal with the local first, at least one instance, before trying to fix global problems. I've started going down the list of User:Lyriker contributions, and adding the link to those articles. Consider it a kind of repair. When I hit articles with no English translation, I had to make a decision. I decided to go ahead; with at least one of these articles I'd placed a notice on the Talk page. No response. In only one place where I solicited comment on lyrikline.org was there even one comment. That was, I think, WP:WikiProject Poetry, and the response was positive. So I'm gradually escalating the links. At some point I might trigger some linkspam response, but I'll immediately stop. If I'm reverted, at this level it's not an issue. I'd revert automatic deletions by an anti-spam volunteer, after placing notice on the Talk page, probably, but not any revert by an editor on the merits. I don't see a problem there. I'd prefer to set up a system whereby permission is obtain to make mass additions, so that the time of antispam volunteers isn't wasted, not to mention my own time, but one step at a time!


 * The basic problem I see with the lyrikline.org blacklisting is that it's hard to undo. De.wikipedia requested it, denied. Why? The original linking stopped when Lyriker was warned. He was blocked anyway. Was there reason to believe that massive addition without finding consensus first was likely to continue? I learned about lyrikline when a whitelisting request was denied. As I recall, the argument was that the link was not necessary, that external links were never necessary, WP:LINKFARM and all that. This was an admin making a content decision, in fact. In the particular article the link was requested for, the link would have been a reasonable decision. Beetstra, for blacklist volunteers to be making content decisions is highly inefficient; they don't know the article and its particular needs, so they make snap judgments, and they don't have time to come up to speed, so they make snap judgments. That's bad process.

proposed solutions

 * So, the two considerations: one one side, develop tools and procedures to efficiently identify true linkspam, and to interdict, as well, massive inappropriate additions of links other than spam. Develop behavioral guidelines for volunteers to do this without "unnecessary roughness," fixing the problem that Wikiproject Spam seems to encourage a battlefield mentality. You know, if you need to block an editor, it's utterly unnecessary to add insult to the injury. Standard block notices should apologize for the inconvenience, and should continue to assume good faith, it costs nothing. AGF is not the opposite of clear enforcement of behavioral and content guidelines.


 * We regret to inform you that your account has been blocked for massive addition of links to Viagraforless.com to articles on migratory birds. Please be sure that links added are appropriate for article, there is a guideline, WP:WHERETOPLACELINKSTOWEBSITESSELLINGVIAGRA, that may apply to your situation, and if you feel that your block was inappropriate, reply with this template, blah, blah. To protect against inappropriate links, the site {viagraforless.com) may be added to the blacklist, in which case, while the list is active, it will be impossible for any editor to add links to that site. Any confirmed registered editor may request removal of the site from the list, a list of editors willing to consider requests from anonymous or new editors is at WP:WeEatSpamForBreakfast, where you will be welcomed and your request considered appropriately.


 * And then general community volunteers consider anonymous requests. The requests would be required to be in a format that would allow easy decisions. Known spammer IP would get tagged right away, might be automatically rejected.


 * Then there would be the delisting/whitelisting page, which should probably be one page. The blacklist page should be about additions only. Let blacklist volunteers add blacklistings with maximum efficiency. Let ordinary editors filter delisting/whitelisting requests and close requests. If there aren't enough volunteers, tough luck; those editors who want to add links where there has been some problem with blacklisting will have to scare up the volunteers. Really, if they are registered, autoconfirmed or whatever standard is set up, all they have to do is find another similarly registered editor to make an independent judgment. The judgment is just preliminary. Decisions go to a working page where they are reviewed by blacklist volunteers familiar with actual linkspamming, who can refuse to process them; but any admin could go ahead and delist or whitelist, in theory. Delisting is simple, whitelisting requires regex knowledge, which could be better documented with examples for common specific whitelist or blacklist complexities. If a blacklist volunteer has an objection to a delisting, that objection could be made at this time (or previously on the delisting/whitelisting page, but the idea here is to make it unnecessary for blacklist volunteers to follow the discussions on the other side; yet still have the opportunity to review approvals before they are implemented. All the requests from anonymous editors get shunted away from inundating blacklist volunteers, and procedures are set up where efficient whitelisting consideration takes place; generally, with registered editors, confirmed, the presumption should be that they should be able to get a specific link whitelisted quickly. And where registered editors think that a site has general usage, where more than one link may be useful, they should be able to request that with little fuss.


 * I can say that I think this would have resulted in very rapid addition of lyrikline.org to the whitelist locally, and that would probably ripple up to meta. With UofA, not so rapid, more resistance, probably, but still basically what we ended up with, with much less wasted time in discussion.


 * lenr-canr.org (we'll get to that!) would have been resolved by now. I ran a mini-RfC at Martin Fleischmann where I deconstructed the arguments raised about lenr-canr.org. That was focused on usage in the particular article, so it would have been more difficult to deal with the whole site, for general usage, but we'd have been there by now.


 * Disagreements will occasionally arise between the general editorial community, making decisions at the delisting/whitelisting page, but the conditions will have been set up for rapid escalation with issues clearly defined (that is, discussion at the dl-wl page, a decision there, followed by objection raised at the bl page, and no consensus there. So ... content RfC, standard process, and, once in a blue moon, RfAr.


 * If something like the lenr-canr blacklisting comes up, this would have taken us to RfC in January, and ArbComm probably the same month. Probably one-tenth the editorial time wasted pre-ArbComm. I say ArbComm because there are entrenched factions involved, dug in and committed to positions. We need to abstract the blacklist operation from this.


 * In reality, the original lenr-canr.org blacklisting should have been removed immediately because it was done by an admin with involvement, outside of process, just like a similar block would be undone if the involvement were discovered, properly, and only immediate necessity would justify a different response. (The addition could then be immediately asserted by a neutral admin, who then becomes responsible for it if it was an error!) As it was, a possibly bad blacklisting was set up, and wasn't considered removable without consensus to remove. That's appropriate, perhaps, though it would be better if consensus were required to keep up a blacklisting. But a presumption of status quo should not apply to blatant conflict of interest cases.


 * If a listing is removed because it was defective like this, and it was then taken by the same admin to meta, the result there would have been quite different. The meta blacklisting was dependent on cherry-picked or unsubstantiated evidence presented there, without notice regarding the conditions of the en.wikipedia blacklisting. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-01#lenr-canr.org. The admin involved has complained about forum-shopping, there was one if it ever existed! More about this below. (end post Abd).


 * I'd like to discuss follow up on whitelisting in a separate discussion. Can we try to discuss 'why blacklist' a link separate from that.  I do agree that whitelist requests and de-blacklisting requsts should be judged differently, as times may change, editors may apologise their actions, and even, test de-blacklisting of 'not-entirely-useless-domains' which have been on the list quite long to see if abuse is manageable now, as some examples).  It is however a different procedure.  IMHO, blacklisting of perfectly valid links which are however uncontrollably misused to stop the abuse and 'force' discussion can be a necessity (we have to take Joe jobs into account here as well ... where blacklisting could be protecting the link until other measures can be found, or blacklisting of virus-infected sites of nontheless respectable organisations).
 * The immediate e-blacklisting of lenr-canr.org would need an answer to the question: was JzG in good faith protecting the Wikipedia from a site which enabled/induced/resulted in inclusion of, nonetheless properly referenced, fringe/biased/undue weighed material, or did he really, by blacklisting this site, damage the possibility of achieving a POV? I am not so sure as you are, here, see my section on lenr-canr.org below.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to lyrikline.org

 * But, here, lyrikline.org. The decision not to allow removal or whitelisting was wrong, Beetstra, even if the original blacklisting was correct due to massive link addition. No showing was made of continued risk, and making content decisions, not only for one project, but for all of them, is pretty shaky. A blacklisting could be removed and reinstated rapidly; semiautomated link removal means that harm is transient, and just how much harm would it be if lyrikline.org links were added? That should have been weighed. There was no showing that any of the links were harmful. And probably most or all of them were useful or harmless at worst.


 * You have asserted secret evidence, was it about this? I can't imagine what would change the considerations here. If it were proven that Lyriker was, say, the director of lyrikline.org, or an employee, that would change practically nothing. It would mean that the editor was acting with COI, and would have been required to stop. But that doesn't indicate blacklisting the web site, which punishes not only the web site (actually, not good, this kind of disincentive is problematic) but also the editors who might want to legitimately add a link, the project because valuable content is inhibited, and, in the end, the readers, who may want links like this. --Abd (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (quick answer to this section): No, lyrikline.org does not have secret information. It is simply obvious that lyriker and the IP are related (It is pretty sure that the Lyriker used the IP), and hence, that the account is related to the organisation that 'owns' lyrikline.org, and hence, has a conflict of interest.  Nothing hidden about it.  Is addition under a conflict of interest inappropriate?  No, certainly not necesserily, but the question is 'what is the intention': is it to improve the encyclopedia, or is it to have links to your organisation?  The first is fine, but any hint of the latter, even if untrue, should be strictly be avoided.
 * We keep having the dispute about, what is in the English guideline as 'Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables – per the guideline on non-English-language sites.'. So if you link here to German version of the page on lyrikline.org, where there is an English version of the page available, then the latter link is strongly preferred.  Of the cross wiki additions (outside of the English and German language wikipedia) all 'violate' that sentence (but rules may be different locally, and indeed some wikis don't have such a clause in their WP:EL (I don't see it in Italian, e.g.), but others do have similar clauses (Danish, e.g.)).  That the additions were done in such a way does strengthen the feeling that some thought of promotion may have been the case.  A similar case from my past here was with a similar organisation.  They were adding their links left and right, warned for a COI (which was bloody obvious, and they was even in the marketing department) and some problems with their link (the site only worked on limited systems, simply excluding a majority of browsers).  They did not acknowledge, continued.  One can still argue that it is just a misunderstanding and an, albeit totally misplaced, attempt to improve Wikipedia .. until they started to put also their links to promotional wordpress sites ... their aim was NOT to improve wikipedia, it was to get their links spread around.  As I always say, COI does not have to be a problem, but avoid it strictly until 'you know the ways'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lenr-canr.org
Lenr-canr.org contains copies of information about cold fusion. The authors have given permission to post the information here, so copyright is not an issue (or minor, in case some cases exist where the copyright on a document actually is not properly transferred, but I presume that that document will be gone quickly).

This means, that lenr-canr.org only contains information for which it can get a copyright. I know for a fact the large publishing bodies in chemistry (ACS, RSC, Sciencedirect, Elsevier) have the copyright of the documents that get published by them. That copyright is not with the editors anymore, they even need to pay to read the articles in the journal. It is to me very, very unlikely that they will grant sites like newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org the right to publish them free of charge (maybe after being payed significantly for that, I recall that on one of the sites you can pay a significant sum of money to make your document publicly visible?). It is hence quite sure that these sites do not give a complete overview of a field, the references on these sites are 'chosen' (partially by the maintainer, 'I want that article, that is of interest for me', partially because it is impossible to get a complete overview (one might miss an article left and right), partially because they simply can't put it on their site), and hence, not necesseraly neutral. The total conglomerate of all possible sources is however neutral (or at least, as close as possible to it) ..

Is the site fringe .. well, the information that is there, is OK. However, it is probably not complete, and may have a certain preference. It may result (without the maintainer being able to do something about it, or intending it!) in a 'fringed' (do I conjugate correctly) view of the situation (I know that I am telling JzG now where to stuff beans, while this may not have been the thought behind the blacklisting!). But well, on the other hand, I can use information published in Science in a fringe way.

What I tried above to show with uofa.edu (a really small problem!), is that there are limits to solutions, and things around it. Blacklisting, semi-protection, and blocks are sometimes not a suitable solution, and one solution may still not solve the problem, as all three of them individually can be circumvented and cause just as much (or even more) disruption as it blocks, and in the case of uofa.edu even applying all three solutions might not be a total stop to the disruption (have I mentioned that one could create Univ. of Atlanta, University of Atlanta (Georgia)?). Have we met Grawp yet? The question is, what is the damage caused with which, and which is minimal? All three are dependent on the persistence of the parties, and the creativity of the parties.

As I said, lenr-canr.org contains a lot of information which is a copy of other information. In all cases, the original information should be used for reference, the copy can be mentioned (and can certainly be informative). Linking to both of them certainly is a good extension, but even a working link to the original is not necessery (if I say that 'lenr-canr.org was blacklisted on meta on the 10th of January 2009 by Erwin' gives everybody a pretty quick and accurate possibility to verify that, but it makes life so much easier if I say 'lenr-canr.org was blacklisted on meta on the 10th of January 2009 by Erwin'). But it should never mean that only the copy should be used or linked.

So do I believe that JzG was, by blacklisting this link, pushing his POV? No, the total conglomerate of information is always more neutral than a site which contains a lot of copies, and all information can still be used as a reference anyway. Is the site fringe? No proof. Does it contain fringe information? No proof. Can the site be used in a fringe way? Quite possible/Yes (possibility being true for every site, but we don't blacklist on possible abuse ..). And does it look like that was done in this case? Well, that looks like a yes to me. Was JzG involved? Possibly, though the question is if he was pushing a view or trying to stop pushing a view, and is a spam-fighter involved if he first reverts 100 link additions and then blacklists the site. However, does lenr-canr.org contain information of which it has the only easily accessible copy? Yes. So the solution has its problems, but as we saw, that is true for all solutions.

The information on lenr-canr.org can be read by everyone. The use of that site on wikipedia enables everyone to use that data (in fact, that is still the case). Does that result in a POV on the article? Possibly (though not necesserily!). Why? Because other information from other sources which is not available on lenr-canr.org can not be used by all users in the same easy way, that may result that Wikipedia following the view of lenr-canr.org, which is not necesserily a world-wide view. I don't think that is what we want, do we? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a novel argument, Beetstra: we should block a web site providing material, allegedly imbalanced, not because of their intention, but because of reluctance of authors or publishers to give permission for hosting, a reluctance allegedly affecting one side of some controversy, on the argument that an imbalance is created.


 * This is the real situation: there is very little recent material of high reliability that is anti-cold fusion. The vast majority of recent material in peer-reviewed publications supports the hypothesis of cold fusion, to the extent that the original reasons for widespread rejection have been totally dismantled, to the extent that, as an example, one of the most vocal critics (Park, author of Voodoo Science) has said that now he considers it a legitimate field. I'm reading Huizenga now, and basically, he got stuck in an original negative mindset; in fact, negative results, unless experimental conditions are exact, mean almost nothing for a difficult-to-reproduce phenomenon. Huizenga is aware, and makes the point repetitively, that CF was very difficult to find, contrary to the original effusive media reports. In fact, it took many years of work (albeit by underfunded and struggling researchers) to find conditions where it's reliable. Everyone was looking for neutrons, considered to be the sine qua non of the phenomenon being fusion.


 * What is now known is that whatever it is, it doesn't directly produce neutrons. The input is deuterium, which goes into a black box, and while there are plenty of theories as to what happens in that box, there is nothing to the point of general acceptance even by cold fusion researchers, a point Krivit makes. It may not be "fusion," except that if the input is deuterium and the output is helium and heat and/or radiation, fusion is an obvious hypothesis. And, contrary to what you will find in Huizenga or most of the critical material (which is generally old, before experiments showing this had been reproduced extensively), helium is produced in quantities such that the known energy released from D+D fusion accounts for the excess heat observed. And radiation is also observed, correlated with the excess heat as well.


 * Fleischmann and Pons originally reported radiation. That was apparently an error, and the kind of radiation they reported only saw scattered confirmation. But their heat measurements were solid, and the Fleischmann-Pons effect refers to anomalous heat. There is anomalous heat, massively confirmed; by 2004, even a likely biased review panel was evenly split on the question, half the panel being quite convinced about the heat, the other half considering evidence not conclusive. Looking back at Huizenga, why did he reject excess heat? Because the theory he was following said that there could not be such heat, it must therefore, be experimental artifact. Further, if it was fusion, radiation would be expected, and the radiation findings were, indeed, artifacts, and, besides, Huizenga points out, the level of radiation was totally inadequate to explain the heat. He was right.


 * The radiation was alpha radiation, which is simply high-energy helium nuclei. This radiation is very short-range in an environment like the electrodes and electrolyte of a CF cell, and none of it would penetrate the glass wall of the cell. That radiation was detected by placing CR-39 detectors immediately next to the electrodes; the earliest work doing this was, as far as I've, done in China and wasn't widely noticed. The SPAWAR group reported, peer-review published, massive alpha radiation detected with CR-39, some years ago. In March of this year, it finally hit the media. Neutrons. The evidence considered an absolute necessity by Huizenga, reliably detected. But very low-level. In other words, the early failures to find neutrons were based on the levels being very low, even undetectable using the methods employed. The error was in assuming that neutrons were necessary. The SPAWAR neutrons are almost certainly a byproduct of a secondary reaction.


 * I.e., black box produces alpha particles with high energy or other high-energy phenomena. High energy plus deuterium produces hot fusion, classical fusion, well understood. It is the neutrons from that fusion that the SPAWAR group is reporting, my theory is, in fact, what they also give as an explanation, without speculating on what hot fusion is doing in a cold fusion cell.


 * What I'm stating now is largely original research, i.e., an original review of the field based on my reading over the last three months. The issue of neutrons is very new, there hasn't been time for serious scientific review. I wouldn't dare to put my own research into the article. Krivit, however, has been widely quoted on this, and that can be in the article and, in fact, has been put there. Krivit is being quoted (I think it's still in the article, *I* might have removed it for various reasons), but his web site is blacklisted. Bad situation, Beetstra.


 * Cold fusion is quite an unusual field: the popular media is highly negative, widespread opinion among scientists not specializing in the field is also quite negative, though support seems strong among chemists and the opposite among nuclear physicists, there being quite notable exceptions in both fields. If we confine ourselves to peer-reviewed sources, preferring later to earlier (which is normal), the balance is strong, very strong, toward low-energy nuclear reactions being real, and there are a number of relatively recent reviews that treat this as a fact. The number of physicists who show, by their comments, familiarity with the recent literature, and who are very negative, is very low. If there is one. The vast majority of physicists concluded (largely based on media reports or early negative studies) that the field was bogus, and why waste time carefully examining work in a bogus field? --Abd (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: "This is a novel argument, Beetstra: we should block a web site providing material, allegedly imbalanced, not because of their intention, but because of reluctance of authors or publishers to give permission for hosting, a reluctance allegedly affecting one side of some controversy, on the argument that an imbalance is created.". This is, again, a complete misinterpretation of what I said, just filtering out certain parts of sentences that fit what you want to hear me saying, leaving out arguments, and a absolutely not what I mean. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an open discussion, Beetstra, if I misinterpret what you intended, please, correct it. We hold discussions because we are not mind-readers and because we may misunderstand each other. So, please repeat what was important and different about what you were saying.


 * Here is what you wrote and on which I based my summary:


 * This means, that lenr-canr.org only contains information for which it can get a copyright. I know for a fact the large publishing bodies in chemistry (ACS, RSC, Sciencedirect, Elsevier) have the copyright of the documents that get published by them.  That copyright is not with the editors anymore, they even need to pay to read the articles in the journal.  It is to me very, very unlikely that they will grant sites like newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org the right to publish them free of charge (maybe after being payed significantly for that, I recall that on one of the sites you can pay a significant sum of money to make your document publicly visible?).  It is hence quite sure that these sites do not'' give a complete overview of a field, the references on these sites are 'chosen' (partially by the maintainer, 'I want that article, that is of interest for me', partially because it is impossible to get a complete overview (one might miss an article left and right), partially because they simply can't put it on their site), and hence, not necesseraly neutral.  The total conglomerate of all possible sources is however neutral (or at least, as close as possible to it) ..


 * You bring up the copyright issue, we do know or can reasonably assume that lenr-canr.org hosts many documents with permission of the publishers, and this includes material published by Elsevier; apparently they do, sometimes, give permission. I will certainly grant the possibility of selection bias through this phenomenon (selective permission, and, we may suspect, lenr-canr.org isn't likely to pay for a paper they consider useless), however, in fact, the negative material is almost all quite old, and is of less importance to the article on the present science. It seems to me that you were saying quite what I wrote as a brief summary, so .... please correct me, correct or explain your original statement better, or both.


 * There is, by the way, another archive, Rothwell refers to it, hosted by Dieter Britz, who is a skeptic. They help each other out, apparently, toward completing the bibliography in the field; Dieter also summarizes and categorizes papers, and Rothwell has strongly criticized some of Dieter's work. These are people, both of them, who seem to be intellectually honest, and don't want to "win" some argument by repressing evidence, but by examining it and weighing it and criticizing it.


 * For reference, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf is very recent, compiled in the last few days. This is a document by Rothwell on publications in the field, his original draft of this was a list of peer-reviewed papers confirming the Fleischmann-Pons effect of excess heat from metal deuterides, which settled at 153. There are many more conference papers, not peer-reviewed. That was compiled in response to claims that the Pons and Fleischmann results were not confirmed, something frequently seen as an introduction to the media reports of the recent ACS seminar. It's a claim that has been repeated since 1989, when it was made before there had been sufficient time to confirm! By the time of the 1989 DOE review, there were some confirmations, but there may have been hundreds of groups working at that time, and the large majority of these groups did not find the Fleischmann effect -- no heat -- but they went ahead, some of them, and looked for radiation and nuclear ash, and, big surprise, didn't find any. They weren't creating the conditions for the effect, so they weren't seeing any evidence it was nuclear! It was easy to dismiss the early confirmations as being due to some as-yet unidentified artifact, quite a reasonable assumption, in my opinion, at the time, though any good scientist would realize, one would think, that negative results prove little, and that waiting and watching would be more prudent before forming strong conclusions. A few papers, in addition, reported finding specific errors in the P-F work, which as to radiation, were probably correct, but as to excess heat, were not. Those papers were published, and, if I've got the history right, the responses showing that the errors (such as alleged failure to stir the electrolyte) did not apply were, by that time, rejected by publication policy. We have a lot of reliable source on the rather scandalous history, particular from the sociologist, Bart Simon, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion.


 * http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/ is Dieter Britz's bibliography, and I'd certainly want to see it as an external link from the article, it is far and above the most useful web site operated by someone who claims to be "neutral" on cold fusion. Britz would be a notable exception to the idea that chemists and especially electrochemists are less skeptical than physicists, he's an electrochemist, according to Rothwell. Rothwell discusses Dieter's position at some length at the end of the Rothwell document cited above, and says, in particular:


 * ''Britz is the only electrochemist I know who has read the literature extensively and yet who does not believe cold fusion is real. The others agree with Gerischer, who wrote in 1991: “there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”


 * This would be from Heinz Gerischer, Memorandum on the present state of knowledge on cold fusion. 1991, Fritz Harber Institute der Max Planke: Berlin. There is a translation of this at http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf Gerischer was a skeptic based on the earlier research, but was apparently convinced by work which had come to light by 1991. Gerischer died in 1994.


 * OK, I'll say why it is a total misinterpretation of my input (why do I have the feeling that we keep on having this, Abd? Do our basic points of view really oppose so much.  I am really trying to be clear).  Simply: you base your summary on one part of a lot more what is said, not applying the rest.
 * You interpretation fails because I did not say (I might say: nobody did) that we should blacklist a web site because it is providing unbalanced (or wrong, fringe, or even explicit sexual) content. We (and I am including JzG in this) don't go surfing 'round the web finding sexual content, fringe sites, or whatever website we come accross for the purpose of finding websites which are possibly of no use to wikipedia so we can blacklist them.  That is not how we spam-fighters work, but your filtration of my comments suggests just that (I am sorry if that was not your intention, but then please be more careful next time in interpretating other peoples comments).  When do we blacklist?  We blacklist sites when there has been abuse of sites (exceptions are the url-shorteners like tinyurl, which are blacklisted if we encounter them, even when they are used properly or not have been used yet, and sites which bring damage onto users (malware sites or hacked sites, most of these blacklistings are temporarily)).
 * If I read the ArbComm case on Cold fusion (comments regarding OR, POV and UNDUE), and see some diffs of involved editors, then that is just where some editors were using these sites for: pushing their POV or OR, and applying UNDUE weight, forms of disruption, users who actually get banned from the involved articles!
 * If a good site gets blatalantly and uncontrollably pushed for promotional reasons, it runs the risk it gets blacklisted, if a site is used primarily and massively to promote a POV, it runs the risk that it gets blacklisted, if a sex site does not get added to Wikipedia, or only once to the wikipage on the site, it will never get blacklisted. You seem to keep getting back to 'if a site is not bad, it should never be blacklisted', while many others say 'if a site gets uncontrollably misused, maybe blacklisting can keep the abuse under control'.
 * Regarding the rest of the comment: I am not disputing, anywhere, that these sites contains good information and with the copies that are there there are no copyright issues. I am still a bit worried about the reliability of it, but that is not the issue at hand, it was the abuse by certain editors.  I really suggest that you address that part.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The following is quite long. Beetstra, if you need abstracts, I'll write them, but not immediately. Let me know.


 * Thanks, Beetstra. You should understand that if I focus on only part of what you have said, it may not say much about the rest of your comment, but probably it means this: I agreed with the rest, or didn't understand it, or didn't care, and it did not seem important to disagree or to question you about it. In formal consensus process we might delineate, specifically, our agreements, and there are many. I was not referring, in my considerations, to only your response, but to another response on the blacklist page which was very simply content-based, probably "fringe." There was utterly no suggestion in my comments of seeking out fringe or whatever to blacklist it, only that once a page has come to the attention of blacklist administrators, there may be overreliance on fringe issues in determining delisting or whitelisting. Were there credible charges of serious linkspam, that would be quite understandable. We'll get back to that part, but it seemed to me that you had already conceded that issue with respect to newenergytimes.com, and we haven't seriously addressed it with lenr-canr.org.
 * The determination of undue weight at Cold fusion is a very complex matter, it is very easy to confuse someone who is asserting a scientific point of view with someone who is pushing a fringe POV, because, with cold fusion, the media and popular image of cold fusion is as rejected Bad Science, fringe, disproven twenty years ago, whereas in the peer-reviewed literature and published scientific reliable source, the matter is far less clear, and, indeed, there are serious reviews or expert opinion going as far back as 1992 that concluded the opposite. Once we set aside the framing generated by the media flap and the polemic coming from the anti-cold fusion writers, which was very successful politically, and look at the DOE reviews, they did not, in 1989 and 2004, treat cold fusion as "fringe," merely as a hypothesis which was "not conclusive," according to the majority, and they recommended further research, both years, something which would never be recommended with pseudoscience or serious fringe. As to active editors, Pcarbonn was literally framed, by JzG incidentally, and it's easy to understand how, there is a ready appearance here which is different from the reality. Pcarbonn was careful about compliance with guidelines, from what I've seen, and he was banned based on interpretation of evidence as showing an agenda to use Wikipedia to "correct" the general media impression. But what is the "scientific consensus?" With cold fusion, the question is actually very difficult, this isn't like rejection of global warming or rejection of evolution or polywater or homeopathy. What I've been finding is that it's quite difficult to find scientists who are knowledgeable about the recent research who haven't concluded that the evidence is conclusive. Yes, there is a catch in this. What if the rest of the scientists in related fields have concluded that the field is so bogus that it's not worth reading the papers?


 * But if we look at the people involved, the reputations and credentials of some of those who did or who are doing cold fusion research, and look at some of the work that has been done since the initial rejection, the "smart efficient ignorance" of such critics looks pretty shallow.


 * Rothwell asserts that he's only met one electrochemist who isn't convinced that low-energy nuclear reactions are taking place, and that exception is Dieter Britz, who claimed at one time to be "agnostic" on the topic, but who maintains a bibliography to support study of the topic. (It's the other major one, besides the one at lenr-canr.org, and they cooperate). So what is the "scientific consensus" if this is true? Apparently, it depends on whom you ask. Ask chemists, one answer. Ask physicists, a different answer. This is, properly, emerging science, where there is no settled and broad consensus, there is dispute. Our article should be telling this story, it's easy to find in reliable source, once editors know where to look. I bought six books to help me get more of a grasp of this field:
 * "Pro":
 * Tadhahiki Mizuno, Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion, 1997, translation by Jed Rothwell, 1998.
 * Edmund Storms,The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, 2007
 * "Con":
 * Gary Taubes, Bad Science, The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, (1993)
 * John R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion, The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, (revised 1993)
 * Neutral, or cautiously skeptical (my judgment):"
 * Nate Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, (1995)
 * Sociological study:
 * Bart Simon, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion (2002)


 * There are more that I need to get, particularly Beaudette ("pro") and perhaps Parks (very negative, may have recently retreated a little, reported in New Energy Times, citing a Parks blog entry about the Mosier-Boss (SPAWAR) neutron findings).


 * I have never before spent anything like this kind of money to research an article for Wikipedia, but the topic is fascinating and I have some historical connections with it: I did a Mossbauer effect experiment as a junior at Caltech, so when I read Storms about possible biological nuclear transformation, I'm immediately very skeptical, what in the world is Storms doing with this nonsense, then when I see the Mossbauer effect evidence, which is highly precise, insanely precise, I realize the implications. I'm still skeptical, but at the point where I then ask, what about confirmation and, damn, it isn't that hard to run this experiment, how can I get the radioactive source and the gamma ray detection equipment and some of those bacteria? (I'm totally unprepared to do that kind of thing now, I'm a writer and political theorist, not an experimental scientist, but I can dream) And then, as well, in 1989, I saw the Fleischmann work and immediately realized the implications, and went out bought $10,000 worth of palladium. I still think it was a good bet; one does not always win good bets, or they wouldn't be called bets, but when good and clear confirmation did not appear, and no commercial applications, palladium prices, which had risen some before I bought and a bit after, settled back down and I lost a little money, not much; if I'd held on longer, I'd have made some money anyway. There is no clear proof either way, but it's quite possible that commercial applications are far away, still, or even impossible. We already knew that low-energy nuclear reactions were possible (muon-catalyzed fusion), but not practical, because it's too expensive (in energy and in money) to produce the muons.


 * Maybe one or more of the commercial projects that are underway -- and which have been underway for years -- will pan out, but it's quite possibly too fragile an effect to utilize commercially. Cold fusion, because of a lot of initial enthusiasm, got associated with scam artists and free-energy-for-everyone fringe, and once one has opened the door that classical quantum mechanics just might be wrong in its understanding of what's going on in condensed matter, the door was open for all kinds of theories, some of them quite likely usable in fruit cake, and suddenly very unusual experimental findings were being taken seriously. That's actually healthy, in a way, it's a brainstorming period, unless the associations cause people to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which they do. The most knowledgeable scientists in the field acknowledge that there has been a lot of bad or weak or poorly controlled research ... but also some very good and solid research, and tarring the good research with the brush used to tar the bad research is a bad idea.


 * So when I came across the blacklistings by JzG, I had no content opinion, I had assumed that cold fusion was dead. I was vaguely aware that there was still some research going on, but had assumed this was scattered, classic fringe, die-hard, garage experimentation with a healthy dose of scam tossed in. I was simply concerned about action as an admin while involved, and about blacklisting of web sites based on some POV, either of the web site or of the blacklisting admin, or even of some local consensus of admins. Bad idea, very, very bad idea, Beetstra, except in specific circumstances which did not apply and still don't.


 * The history of Cold fusion is a fascinating story, Beetstra, and we should be covering it in depth, and the "anti-fringe" wars have seriously damaged our ability to do that. What we've had, for example, is exclusion of text based on recent reliable source based on an editorial synthesis that it "contradicted" old RS publications from an allegedly more reputable journal. However, looking closely, there is no contradiction; the earlier results were negative and the later publications positive under different conditions. CF researchers now know that if they reproduce the conditions of the negative experiments, they will get negative results. Thus they are confirming those earlier experiments, not negating them. Except, of course, they are negating unwarranted conclusions. "I didn't see excess heat! Therefore Pons and Fleischmann were frauds, they caused this huge waste of time." (You don't see that in the papers themselves, but in other reports from the time, such as Mallove's account of the MIT fiasco.)


 * It's pretty frustrating, now, to read, say, Huizenga, with the benefit of fifteen years of hindsight. So many things about cold fusion are obvious now, and he doesn't seem to have considered the possibilities, but was very confident of his conclusions. He, like many, placed huge emphasis on the absence of neutrons or, secondarily, gamma radiation. Couldn't be fusion if there are no neutrons. The levels of neutrons detected, even if those detections were real, he would argue, is vastly lower than enough to explain the excess heat. Helium measurements were still quite controversial when he published. The whole field was confused by the publication of negative results (such as no helium) that were not correlated with excess heat. No excess heat, no helium. So if you run an experiment supposedly duplicating Pons and Fleischmann, and you don't want to do the messy and difficult calorimetry to detect the excess heat, but you are just looking for neutrons and helium or tritium, say, and you don't find any, you say, "See, doesn't work." But we now know that it was really difficult to get a classic P-F electrolysis cell to generate heat. Conditions that one would not expect to affect the results do, the batch of palladium matters.


 * (That fact raised lots of suspicions that pro-cold fusion researchers were just explaining away negative results, a very reasonable suspicion. But, then, methods were developed that didn't depend in the same way on batch. Manufacturing of palladium electrodes produces highly variable levels of cracking; cracks in the palladium cause it to lose deuterium much more rapidly, and so the critical levels of deuterium loading are not reached. Unlike early belief, what Storms calls the NAE, or nuclear active environment, is only at the surface of the electrode, and not more than maybe 25 microns deep. Surface conditions matter. Even with active electrodes, the reactions seem to be taking place in only isolated small regions -- the SPAWAR group produced video images of flashes of light, I think -- I haven't seen them. As an example of what might cause that, suppose that the deuterium lattice, under unusual conditions, enables muons to be more effective in recatalyzing fusion, but initiating such a reaction would then require a muon. Muons are generated at low levels from cosmic rays. So reproduction would be erratic and mysterious. Not a serious proposal, I think it's been ruled out, but I'm just pointing out that there could be quite reasonable explanations for the suspicious problems with replication ... and that's really moot now, because there are methods with reasonably high reliability, some papers are claiming 100% in recent years.)


 * Other early writers and skeptics such as Hoffman come out looking pretty good. Hoffman was skeptical, for sure, but also acknowledged that there were some anomalies, that it wasn't just a simple matter as easy rejection. He pointed out a number of experiments that seemed artifact-free, that did not seem to have a non-nuclear explanation. He pointed out that the calorimetry work, some of it, was being done by competent experts who knew how to avoid artifacts. Hoffman was taking the position of a scientist who doesn't reject without proof, but who likewise doesn't accept merely because of the absence of proof that something is wrong. He postpones judgment. He pointed out possible artifacts in various experiments. He avoided considering the anomalous heat evidence, because it, by itself, doesn't positively point to "nuclear," it merely points to "not ordinary chemistry," plus, of course, the possibility of some unidentified and repeated artifact.


 * He doesn't seem to be aware of portions of the experimental work that had been done by the time he wrote, it's possible that with more time, he would have come to different conclusions. Or not. His goal was similar to that of the DOE: was this worth immediately funding with large gobs of cash? The goal wasn't actually the science, as far as the research he was paid to do. It was making decisions about investment likely to pay off with useful energy production. It was the same with the Japanese MITI project, which shut down when it became apparently that this wasn't going to be easy. Even though I'm convinced, now, that there are low-energy nuclear reactions taking place in metal deuterides, and probably in some other condensed matter environments as well, that doesn't translate to practical applications, these could still be a long way away. If I were asked to advise the DOE, what I'd say might be quite what they said: focused grants for specific projects to establish the basic science. Not a Manhattan-scale project, not now. Fleischmann did say that it would take a project on that level to bring this to commercial success. Isn't that interesting? Is it in the article? Why not? (I think it's in reliable source, but my memory might be faulty on that). In order to justify that kind of investment, the basic science should be solid, as it was with the original Manhattan project, it wasn't merely based on a "Maybe, if." It was much more "How?" Hot fusion is getting huge funding, even though it's difficult, because the science is established and it is merely a matter of engineering. Very difficult engineering, to be sure. --Abd (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I did not read it in full, but I got it.  Yes, you are right (though I did not know that ArbComm ruled about it), fringe science should not be excluded from Wikipedia.  But it is again besides the point, Abd, because I have also never said that fringe science should be excluded from Wikipedia, and blacklisting lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com does not exclude the subject Cold fusion.  Not at all, neither does it exclude fringe views from the article.  But, as I mentioned, I still believe that these sites were abused to give an undue weight on the positive view of Cold fusion.  Could you please enlighten me (and others, I guess a better place would be on the spam blacklist talkpage) that actually User:Pcarbonn and others who have been banned on Cold fusion actually gave a proper, neutral view, and that there hence is no sign of abuse (I asked you to address this, but you seem to dodge the subject).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and questions. I'll try to be brief.
 * A blacklisting does not exclude content, but inhibits edits (heavily, sometimes) and discussion (less, but still). Further, sources, whether there is an external link section or not, are used by readers for further reading and study. If one class of site is excluded, there is a weight created on other "sides."
 * There is an unusual situation with Cold fusion. The weight of popular media sources is clearly toward cold fusion being fringe science or worse. However, we can look at those sources and easily identify serious errors, commonly repeated, such as the claim that the Fleischmann result was never replicated. It was replicated many times, I have a list of 153 peer-reviewed publications showing it was. What was replicated was excess heat. The nuclear radiation results of Fleischmann were, basically, wrong, experimental error. The early efforts to duplicate were plagued, then, by two problems: the most important result was considered, by physicists, to be the radiation, and when radiation was not found, that was considered conclusive, even though, in fact, most of these studies didn't find heat either; some weren't even designed to find heat, so they had no way of knowing if they were setting up the very difficult conditions for excess heat, they were assuming that if they followed what little they knew of the Fleischmann work, and if it worked, they'd see the radiation. When they didn't, they concluded, bad science, and told the media. However, much later, it had become obvious that the heat was real, massively confirmed, failure to confirm heat was simply a reflection of the difficulty of finding the effect, it became known how to find it more reliably (some groups now claim 100% with their methods), etc. And radiation is found, but not the kind of radiation that was expected, and which was easily overlooked.
 * Chemists, on the other hand, were very familiar with calorimetry as a tool of investigation in chemistry, and the excess heat proved to them that this wasn't mere chemistry. Does that mean it's fusion? Not directly. That takes other evidence, hence the crucial questions of radiation and nuclear ash.
 * Okay, media says "fringe." Lots of media source that can be read this way. But, is the article an article on science? If so, preferred sources are from peer-reviewed publication. Reviewing what is in peer-reviewed source, the balance is quite on the other side! There is a disconnect between what scientists who are working in the field, or sitting on review panels and who actually read the new research think, and what the public or "most scientists" think. Read Cold fusion now, read the lead in particular. Is it your impression from that that the 1989 DOE panel and the 2004 panel rejected cold fusion?


 * Here it is:


 * Enthusiasm turned to skepticism as early replication failures were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[6] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8] However, some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion and publish their findings at conferences, in books, and scientific journals.[7][9][10]


 * There have been few mainstream reviews of the field since 1990. In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) had found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions that were similar to those of the 1989 panel.[11]


 * The present article is decent, I've been thinking of suggesting the removal of the POV tag, but that doesn't mean that I don't also consider it deficient. I would walk away from reading the above, putting together the paragraph about "most scientists," and the "reputation as pathological science," and then the DOE findings, and think this was rejection. But, in fact, the term "not persuasive" was literal. Doubt remained. Actually, the 2004 panel report (which wasn't written by the panel, if I'm correct) does make the "similar to 1989" comment, but "not persuasive" isn't in the conclusion. Deeper in the body of the report, we find that the panelists were split evenly on the question of excess heat, half finding the evidence "compelling," and the other half finding that there was "no convincing evidence" of excess heat "when integrated over the life of the experiment." They didn't say "no evidence," and "no convincing evidence" is quite equivalent to "I wasn't convinced." As to a nuclear origin for the heat, the report has this: Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced.


 * I find it difficult to read this and be certain of the meaning, and I need to review, again, the reports of the individual reviewers, because "evidence is not conclusive" could mean, for an individual among the reviewers, anything from "strong but not conclusive" to "totally bogus." What the report actually did, with unanimity, was to recommend further research, modestly funded through existing programs, as did the 1989 report. What immediately strikes me is that a scientific review panel like this doesn't recommend further research on some pseudoscience. An antifringe editor at Cold fusion claimed that the "further research" recommendation was just boilerplate, "they always say that," or something to that effect. But I have read the individual recommendations in the past, and the recommendation for further research was very clear, not written by a bureaucrat, and specific and based on open issues. What we do know from the history is that the DOE did not follow the recommendations of its own panel, and that proposals from reputable scientists to do exactly the recommended research, on a modest scale, were consistently rejected; further, the recommendations that work in this area be subjected to normal peer review were likewise ignored by certain major scientific journals, such as Nature, which set policies against publishing anything in the field, but, as found in one critical RS, Hoffman, did publish poor work on failure to reproduce. All this is documented in reliable source, Beetstra.


 * Take home this: determining what is "balance" for Cold fusion is quite difficult. If we follow the recommended peer-reviewed source guideline, most of the article would be positive on cold fusion. If we follow the deprecated (for science) pop media RS (i.e., newspaper and magazine articles, subjected to editorial review and some fact-checking but nothing as rigorous as peer review), the opposite would be true. It is crucial that decisions like this not be warped by use of administrative tools, and the blacklist is an administrative tool.


 * At the time of the blacklisting, there were only a handful of links to lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. There is no sign of undue weight, and no sign that undue weight would arise if the blacklisting were lifted. There was no massive appearance of links from IP editors or single editors. It does happen frequently that a new editor or IP edit appears and puts up something breathlessly promoting cold fusion. And it's immediately reverted out, and I've done that myself. There is absolutely no danger of imbalance appearing in the pro-cold fusion direction from delisting. As you have noted, blacklisting doesn't inhibit content for knowledgeable editors, on the one hand, but it can made the process more cumbersome.


 * You wrote: But, as I mentioned, I still believe that these sites were abused to give an undue weight on the positive view of Cold fusion. Could you please enlighten me (and others, I guess a better place would be on the spam blacklist talkpage) that actually User:Pcarbonn and others who have been banned on Cold fusion actually gave a proper, neutral view, and that there hence is no sign of abuse (I asked you to address this, but you seem to dodge the subject).


 * I can see no evidence of abuse of the sites in any significant way, but I'll look more closely. About Pcarbonn, his ban was based on allegations of editing with an agenda, of violation of WP:BATTLE, but without finding guideline violations. The allegations came from JzG, originally, and the ArbComm finding pointed to JzG's report of an article written by Pcarbonn for New Energy Times. As I understand the matter presently, Pcarbonn, there, referred to media bias, and since Wikipedia depends on the media to determine notability and balance, for most subjects, his efforts to make the article reflect a more scientific point of view were interpreted, not as that, but as efforts to change the opinion of the world by changing the Wikipedia article. Now, I have not reviewed the specific arguments before ArbComm in that case, and I think Pcarbonn's behavior irrelevant to the questions before us. Pcarbonn was an SPA, if I'm correct, but knew very well his precarious position as one, and rigorously followed, once established, guidelines. I saw him take references to lenr-canr.org or newenenergytimes.com out, apparently seeking consensus. JzG had been removing them for years, mostly without discussion. Sometimes those removals stuck, sometimes not. I do know that at one point many links were removed but there was an external link or link to the lenr-canr.org bibliography, as I recall. That appears to have been some kind of compromise, later overturned by new action. When JzG blacklisted, he removed, from Cold fusion, four links to lenr-canr.org and five links to newenergytimes.com.. For two of the NET links he took out the entire reference, one was an article by Krivit, the other a letter, published on NET, from Edmund Storms (author of the 2007 review book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction). His edit summary for the NET removals was "Bibliography: removing polemic, copyvio links ec.)" The edit summary for the lenr-canr.org references was "(Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright))" Later, he found one more NET link and removed it with (remove redundant ref to unreliable source). The reference was not redundant, if you look at the text that was being referenced by it. He left a significant assertion without a source. On the particular topic, the source would be reliable (and it was, by definition, self-verifiable, the reference was to a list of papers that then constituted citations demonstrating the text.). You can find diffs to the edits in the collapse box of Requests for comment/JzG 3 where his edit history for Cold fusion is shown (to show involvement), this was December 18, 2008.
 * There were also two links removed at Martin Fleischmann, one was to a copy of the infamous press release announcing the Fleischmann research, hosted at NET, and the other was the paper you eventually whitelisted. Since I have an independent copy of the press release (it's in Huizenga's critical work), I could verify that the copy is accurate.
 * So, to summarize, JzG mostly removed convenience copies. It is possible that for some of these, better sources exist, but unlikely for many, I have not verified this, and it's quite a bit of work to prove that there is *no* copy of a paper, I just know that often when I look for papers, if a readily accessible copy exists, it's at lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com, and nowhere else unless, maybe I pay for it. In a few cases he removed entire references, and these seem to have been reasonable references, though possibly controversial, they were certainly not at the level that could have been creating undue weight. (How could convenience copies create undue weight? You have argued that they don't affect text.) I'm quite confident that editorial consensus could be found, with some work at Cold fusion -- there are other editors who will remove on sight, and thus detailed discussion may be necessary, as it was at Martin Fleischmann -- to return most of this, plus other references. Do remember that there are 112 references in the article at this point, and a huge bibliography, I haven't counted the documents in the latter.
 * I've seen no evidence that there was edit warring involved in the insertion of these references, but it's not so easy to check. I did see that there was no edit warring immediately preceding the removals, and that JzG did not note, in Talk, his very substantial removals of links and sources. From my recollection, that was typical, he'd just remove without discussion. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the blacklisting at meta
Beetstra, you gave a link above to the blacklisting, I decide to look again at the original blacklisting discussion there. I'd really like your opinion on it, I'll give my comments. JzG filed the report, with standard links. I do not know how to look at and see what would have been visible to someone reviewing the report at the time, so it's possible that there will be some errors in what I assert, and I'd appreciate correction. I'm not going to quote the massive sections with tool links, just the substance from JzG. My comments in italics. I'll sign each comment, Beetstra, you are welcome to intersperse.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=1338094#lenr-canr.org

lenr-canr.org

This site is managed by one Jed Rothwell, an "infinite energy" advocate and promoter of several fringe POVs on Wikipedia. Accounts include:

User:JedRothwell Special:Contributions/JedRothwell

User:64.247.224.24 Special:Contributions/64.247.224.24

User:208.65.88.243 Special:Contributions/208.65.88.243


 * The web site seems to be associated with Edmund Storms, a well-known researcher in the field, author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007; it's managed by Jed Rothwell, a writer who has been involved with the field of cold fusion for a very long time. There is a magazine called Infinite Energy (magazine), founded by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, which may be what JzG was thinking of. I've not noticed Rothwell "advocating" "infinite energy," he's quite a sober cold fusion expert, albeit a tad opinionated and, like quite a few experts, sometimes blunt and uncivil. The account JedRothwell had not edited Wikipedia since 2006. However, Rothwell edited as IP after that, up until recently; that this editor only edited Talk was not disclosed. As an expert on the topic, published, with the prominent web site, that's quite what he'd have been expected to do. I don't understand the "several fringe POVs" part. I guess that's worse than one, but the only thing I know of about Rothwell that's "fringe" may not be, i.e., the position that low energy nuclear reactions are real. It's media fringe, though that shifted quite a bit in March, but it's recent peer-reviewed research and review'' not fringe. It's a legitimate field of inquiry, for sure. Making the claim that he's an "infinite energy advocate" makes him look like just what JzG called him in the past, a "kook." Please see Requests for comment/JzG 3.


 * ''64.247.224.24 had not edited Wikipedia since 28 April, 2008. This was likely Jed Rothwell, but, if so, it was a very isolated example of editing the article (an edit which should have been non-controversial, though, I'd say). That is, the web site was mentioned in the article, and the editor made it a link. Before that, latest edit was 11 December 2007, this was definitely Rothwell, signed edits.


 * 208.65.88.243 edited briefly with this IP 27 Nov to 1 Dec 2008. Talk page edits. Very much on-topic. Remember, Rothwell is an expert. Someone with no knowledge of the cold fusion field would be quite likely not to understand these edits. If he said "Iwamura," I'd know what he was talking about. Would the blacklist admin reviewing JzG's request understand it? I think, more likely, he'd see tl;dr and the name at the end and the title "librarian, lenr-canr.org," and this has to do with that fringe topic, cold fusion, so .... JzG is confirmed. If, indeed that much attention was paid, there is no sign of much. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can also see some of his input and discussions of his behaviour on enWP.
 * No specific references. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the site:


 * It has been spammed and promoted extensively by Jed Rothwell
 * No evidence presented. Rothwell did not edit articles, and spam usually would refer to articles. So what did Rothwell do on Talk pages? He did two things: once in a while he'd point to one of his own pages in Talk to reference a point he was making or to point to a place for further research. This would certainly not be spamming if it was relevant. However, he also signed his IP edits -- he had not edited under the user name for a very long time -- with "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org." That was not a link, it was his title. But someone looking at diff text might'' miss the difference. I've looked at a fair number of edits by Rothwell, and I didn't see site promotion. For an expert to identify his affiliation in Talk is common and appropriate. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It hosts a good deal of material which is copyright of various journals; in some cases this is asserted to be by permission of the authors, but they do not have the right to give that permission in the case of the mainstream journals I have dealt with in the past (e.g. from Reed-Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer etc.) - copyright is to the journal and its publishers, not the author, that is a normal part of the submission and peer-review process.
 * As you know and have acknowledged, this was a misleading or false argument. There is no evidence of copyvio for lenr-canr.org, there is evidence that Rothwell is very careful about copyright, and he is so prominent that he'd be shut down immediately if there was significant copyvio. He does not'' just claim author permission, he claims permission from publishers as well. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In at least one case it was used as a link to a report; it turned out that the copy it hosted had significant editorialisation around it, which changed the whole tone of the document.
 * Thousands of documents hosted on lenr-canr.org. One document, in the public domain, a copy of the 1989 DOE report, was hosted intact, but had a brief editorial preface by Rothwell, clearly distinguished from the body, pointing out some deficiencies in that report. At one point, the report was linked from the article, the editorial introduction was discovered and the linked changed to the source from which Rothwell had obtained it, a Skeptic's society hosting, which also contains (minor) additions of their society name. I'd agree, it was better, and there was no fuss over this. But JzG repeated the story of alteration over and over and over as "they alter documents." Here, he was pretty accurate. That introduction deprecated (but did not prohibit, if there had not been a "cleaner" copy) the usage of that link. This was totally'' irrelevant to the blacklisting, it was simply tossing mud, and JzG had learned that people would go for it. "They alter documents! Shocking! How could they be trusted?" All this came up when it came time to use the link you whitelisted at Martin Fleischmann.--Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Following the conclusion of en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion I checked on other language projects to see if the fringe POV problems identified in the article en:Cold fusion were repeated elsewhere. At least one project, itWP, has this problem, and has a similar problem with abuse of this site.
 * What was the "problem" at Cold fusion? This was the problem: JzG's position radically excluding anything from lenr-canr.org wasn't supported by editorial consensus. This was not some hidden article, this article was heavily watched by editors who were dedicated to making sure that fringe positions weren't advocated by the article. Those links were there because they weren't offensive to most editors, only to JzG. So, on itWP, some editor had a similar position, perhaps, and he asked JzG for assistance, I could dig up the diffs. In other words, can't get your way with the links by normal editorial process, get the link blacklisted. Beetstra, do I need to mention how much this sucks''?

I blacklisted the site on enWP as it is well within scope for the local blacklist (per the reasons above), and I am now being asked by my contact on itWP to bring it here.


 * ''Why didn't the it editor go to the blacklist there? Or just deal with the article through normal editorial process, blocking of IP, semiprotection? Why go to global to deal with a local article problem? I can tell you why. JzG accused me, again and again, in this whole affair, of "forum shopping." He and his italian friend didn't "forum shop." They went to where they knew, quite well, that JzG's effort would be trusted. What JzG did not tell the meta administrators was that his local blacklisting at en was being questioned. So, he made it moot. He knew how to pull the strings.

The issue of abuse is minor at present as Rothwell's IP is blocked on enWP and that is the major locus of the problem, though he is a serial IP-hopper and block evader. I would like to see this added to the meta blacklist, though, as there is some evidence of offsite collusion and the parties involved are still actively trying to change sites to reflect their view of how the world should be, rather than how it is (see this Knol for example). The site is inappropriate on any Wikipedia due to the issues of copyright violation and falsification of sources, and is a candidate for blacklisting due to promotion by the site owner, but whether that is a big enough problem to invoke the meta blacklist I don't really know. Certainly my friend on itWP would be grateful to be able to kick it into touch. JzG 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Rothwell was blocked by JzG, he didn't mention that. The links that were in the articles were not added by him. He presented a radically distorted picture, there had been no linkspam, JzG's actual problem had been the site owner calling a spade a spade, Rothwell was not shy to say what he thought about ignorant Wikipedia editors. (I did not attempt to appeal the blocks, because Rothwell's apparently incivility, goaded though it may have been -- being called a "kook," and repeated claims that one is violating copyright law, isn't exactly nice -- and being truly SPA and on floating IP anyway, made it moot and not likely to succeed, plus accomplishing nothing. Rothwell had not "evaded" the block, he seems to have been unaware of it. He's got variable IP, and probably two different locations that he accesses the internet from, he simply did what he'd always done, which is mostly not edit Wikipedia. He was really moot, but JzG knew that the meta admins would want a linkspammer to blame, so he provided one. They didn't check, apparently, or if they did, not closely enough.


 * ''I'm unaware of any improper activity that could be covered by this issue of "off-site collusion." He referred to a Knol article, where I think Pcarbonn and Rothwell had collaborated (as I recall, I haven't checked). That has nothing to do with blacklisting. Further, JzG seems to think he knows how the world is, and that Pcarbonn and Rothwell don't. Both of the latter are quite aware of the "media world," and the common rejection of cold fusion. But is JzG aware of the scientific world, where the opinion of "scientists" who aren't involved with a field is deprecated compared to experts in the field? JzG doesn't seem to realize that the rejection of cold fusion wasn't a scientific one, that the 1989 and 2004 DOE reports did not "reject" cold fusion; rather, they came to the conclusion that the evidence wasn't [yet!] conclusive for it, there is a world of difference. In 1989, that conclusion was quite reasonable. By 2004, it was quite a bit shakier, and on the critical issue of excess heat, the panel was evenly split. By now .... it's very hard to tell, but that the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, devoted a four-day seminar to low energy nuclear reactions definitely says something. In the past, they gave it one day, and the American Physical Society likewise, a kind of bone-tossing, a token gesture, some have said. But there are new results, and older results that people are starting to string together, separating the wheat from the chaff. Rothwell and Pcarbonn were very aware of the scientific evidence and recent scientific reviews; JzG is very aware of what his friend says, see the RfC evidence. I'm not aware of any reviews since 2004 that didn't consider the evidence conclusive, and of some which did, and given that the 2004 panel was split, and that the kind of evidence that was claimed to be lacking has been supplied, it's time to move on.


 * ''At the very least, we should not assume that there is a scientific consensus and that we know what it is without being able to show that from reliable source, preferably peer-reviewed. Scientific consensus, to give an example, on Global warming is expressed through review panels that very carefully consider the issues, in great depth, and then publish measured conclusions, using precise language as to the degree of certainty. The DOE reviews were quite shallow; the field of LENR is quite complex, and probably impossible to cover in a one-day meeting, and the designation of "fringe science" is quite incompatible with the actual DOE reviews. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that it's a single-purpose site with the purpose of promoting what's widely considered to be fringe science, I don't see how it could be useful for any of the projects; I second the recommendation. Ohnoitsjamie 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Ohnoitsjamie is the only other admin to comment so far in the current delisting request for newenergytimes.com. He doesn't see how it could be useful, but many other editors obviously disagreed, because they used it, and the usages stuck through severe examination and frequent removal by JzG. He'd remove, he'd be reverted, and nobody backed up his position. Same thing happened with the whitelisted link at Martin Fleischmann. It was pretty much JzG against the other editors, until I finally went to AN/I for edit warring (repetitive removal, much of it without discussion) and someone else showed up and supported his position for a short time. Until it was thoroughly discussed and, apparently, seen to be bankrupt, with consensus being found, the link now stands, stable for quite some time. JzG used his administrative tools to control article content.
 * ''The purpose of lenr-canr.org is to make available information on the topic. That information includes a full reference bibliography including negative published information. As you know, Beetstra, there may be less hosting of some of the negative information as full copies (though I don't know that this is true for sure, I do know and trust that Rothwell would host whatever is in the bibliography if he could get permission.) So, here we have a web site devoted to all available information on the topic of one of our articles, and Ohnoitsjamie doesn't see how it could be useful? Fortunately, what this admin doesn't see is no standard for anything. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually more insidious than that; it presents itself as a resource guide or library on the whole area, but then it uses subtle and not so subtle editorialisation around it. It's a bit like 911readingroom.org in what it does; it pretends to be a "neutral" resource and makes a big show of presenting both sides, but all the original content is heavily biased, the non-original content has no evident copyright permission, and the metadata is untrustworthy due again to bias. We can't even trust it as a bibliography because we don't know if the summaries are accurate, fair or neutral. So yes, I think any link to that site is a problem. JzG 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

''Notice the repetition of the alteration charge. The only document I've seen at lenr-canr.org that had an editorial introduction like that was the 1989 DOE report, though there may be others. There is plenty of original content there that is unbiased, except that JzG is certain that anything that seems to support cold fusion must be biased, because he has this professor friend whom he claims thinks cold fusion is bunk. He thinks the site is a problem, but he is quite biased, that's obvious. This is a question to be resolved through normal editorial process, not through the use of tools, even by neutral administrators. It's like article protection: an admin doesn't protect an article because of edit warring or conflict, then look at the article and decide what edits to make! Unless it's JzG, he did do that, it's one of the charges in the RfC.

''The bibliographies, unfortunately, don't have summaries. They are just raw citations. http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html And I'll admit a bias here: I strongly dislike having to put nowiki tags around that URL just to put it here on my Talk page. Any link to that site is a problem? Yes, we know he thinks that, he detests Rothwell and the site. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. There are still some projects that link to this site. JzG, could you either inform them or remove the links? --Erwin(85) 11:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. JzG 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Standard practice for blacklistings, to remove links, because if they are not removed, they can make an article difficult to edit. However, this means that one administrator at meta'' made a series of content decisions for a series of projects, without notifying the editors of those pages, and with appeal very difficult.


 * Beetstra: the blacklist is a very dangerous tool, and the guidelines for its usage (the instructions) are very clear that it is not to be used except when other measures to prevent linkspam have failed. I can see the possibility of extending this; for example, sites known to host massive copyvio, and nothing else could be reasonable, but, note, we don't blacklist youtube, which hosts massive copyvio. By allowing the blacklist to be used as it was used in this case, where, if you look closely, the only issue was that this is allegedly a web site on a fringe science topic, with the "librarian" having a fringe POV, the basic principle of making editorial decisions by consensus among involved editors, with enforcement of behavioral guidelines by uninvolved'' administrators, has been fundamentally corrupted, and this problem would have existed even if JzG had not been, himself, very involved with the article. That's why this is not just about JzG, and why it cannot be allowed to stand, why, unless I see some cogent argument to the contrary, I'd be willing to walk this all the way up to ArbComm if needed. If it were just you, Beetstra, I would expect that it wouldn't be needed, but it's not just you, and, in fact, you seem to be the most open-minded of blacklist regulars.


 * ''I greatly prefer that we find better ways to structure and guide the blacklisting process in order to make it easier and more efficient to stop linkspam, while at the same time protecting and fostering legitimate content. You saw, with Lyrikline.org, where what qualified as linkspamming was, certainly here at en, legitimate content. I've agreed that the blacklisting was reasonable, initially, for that poetry site. However, that it was continued, in the face of protest from registered editors, in the absence of continued linkspam (and the original "spammer" had stopped, Beetstra, he'd apologized and he started to remove links he'd added at de.wikipedia, until I think the enormity of what had happened to him hit him and he stopped that. This was totally rude, the way he was treated, it shouldn't have happened to anyone. He was cooperative with the de. admin who warned him there. In the end, by the way, it's probably that the link he was warned about there was also a legitimate one. I've placed a similar link here and in one of a couple of edits to de., I put it there. I asked about it on Talk first. That whole affair was truly tragic.
 * The problem isn't the blacklisting, itself, it's delisting and whitelisting. It's quite possible that it should be easier for a link to be blacklisted, but also easier to be delisted, and that's what I'd prefer to work toward; you've read the proposals before: separate blacklisting from delisting/whitelisting process. Develop clear guidelines with community consensus regarding what the blacklist can and cannot be used for. Use general editorial labor to filter out frivolous delisting or whitelisting requests, and keep the work of the present blacklist volunteers focused on quickly and efficiently identifying linkspam.'' Not debatable use of links; if debate is involved, if the removal of links from articles is going to be controversial to any degree with editors other than the one who added them (and even there, depending), the tool of the blacklist should not be used.
 * ''In the case of lenr-canr.org, JzG cited the RfAr for Cold fusion, which had been decided before his local blacklisting (just before, I think), but by the time he came to meta, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science was under way, and that RfAr made it very clear that fringe science wasn't to be excluded from the project. Coppertwig made a comment about that, at the blacklist talk page, I think. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! (just to let you know I'm reading some of this). And yes I did, here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ADHD
The ADHD talk pages are once again spiraling out of control. Scuro has started editing full force. Has been banned for 24 hours. Both myself and LG are getting tired of the whole thing. We just want him to provide sources to back up his POV. You even headed opinions appreciated.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I noticed one thing: edits removing Scuro's comments as vandalism. No, no, no, restrain your wikifriend. Scuro had warned the editor, which might easily be disregarded because of his POV, and wrongly so. First piece of advice, slow down and encourage the other editor to slow down. There is no need to respond to tendentious arguments on a Talk page, or, if responding, it can be kept brief. "I believe we have already discussed this, and consensus seems to be 'No.'" Repetitive edits without consensus to the article can be reverted, but always seek consensus, accept whatever is possible of Scuro's work. You know, I'm sure, not to approach 3RR violation, bad edits are rarely an emergency. More than that, demonstrate good dispute resolution practice, which requires actually seeking consensus, including with editors with an apparently idiosyncratic position. It needn't be tedious. I may be able to help, but Scuro may not trust me, and I'm really, really, really busy at the moment. If the process seems bogged down, if you don't know what to do next, be sure to avoid doing something disruptive. I'd recommend against going to noticeboards unless it's an open and shut case of editing that violates behavioral policies, not merely a content dispute or a claim of tendentious argument, which can be dealt with using more sober processes that will show deeper consideration.
 * Okay, tactical advice: if you are going to revert Scuro's edits to the article, do it only once or twice a day, don't revert each edit as it appears. Be sure not to use rollback, if one of you has it, in a content dispute; instead, you can restore a previous version. (Open historical version, Edit, Save). Always show intention to negotiate consensus, never revert in a developed dispute without explanation in Talk. If possible, edit while reverting to incorporate whatever might be acceptable from the other side. Try new text that you think might be a compromise. Following this, the other editor, if editing alone, is forced to either slow down or violate 3RR. Further, if a pattern of editing develops that shows pure stubbornness, edit warring isn't defined by 3RR, that is merely a bright line not to cross. (You can be blocked for 3RR violation when your edits are actually supporting policy. Such blocks might be undone quickly, or not, it depends on who sees them and how careful they are). But don't pursue a dispute beyond direct negotiation without direct support from more experienced editors. If you haven't found help, wait for it, ask for it, but don't ask as part of some accusation against another specific editor, ask for help resolving a dispute at Article name.
 * Be very careful about unsubstantiated allegations, such as a suggestion I saw hinting at conflict of interest. Don't go there unless you have proof; in my view it should mostly be irrelevant, there isn't a serious problem unless there are multiple editors with a conflict, against some lone "defender of the wiki." Tone it down, forgive and overlook much, stick to the point, be patient. This is what experienced editors learn to do. --Abd (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Beantwo
Regarding your revert; I don't think it was in error. Note that the link doesn't work. Nja 247 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Puzzled. You know why the link doesn't work, the page was moved. I added a note to show that. I have no idea about the underlying case. But there was an SSP case, originally as named, and Beantwo commented in it, and it should be Beantwo removing the notice if the editor wants to do that, or you, since you are the one who placed it. However, since, apparently, you consent to the removal, I've reverted my edit. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WQA discussion
I have refactored your comments because, as you know it's important to keep on task. When too much text is added which is not directly about the reportee then things become confusing and very hard to read. Also discussion would get off track and then again we'd have bickering back and forth without a direct consensus regarding the report at hand. I hope you don't take this personally, but I really want Scuro to have a clear picture of what the community thinks about his behaviour. This needs to be done one step at a time. Nja 247 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I have re-added them as a) we don't remove commentary from WQA in that manner, and b) since the other editor has indeed commented, it seems germaine to the discussion ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been re-added, and that's fair enough. On second thought I probably should have asked you to consider refactoring yourself, so I do apologise. I still think, and hope you'd agree that it would be best to try to keep the discussion focussed on any etiquette issues Scruo has, and overall handle things in steps so that maybe a true understanding comes out of it. Nja 247 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird coincidence, Nja247, this matter and the notice just above this, I don't think they are connected in any way.... As to the comment in question, I'm not sure it's worth going back and refactoring; it was definitely on the point of Scuro's relationship with the community. Sure, it's a bit off the original report, but, then, Scuro's response in the report itself shows evidence regarding behavior, hostility not related to current relationships. --Abd (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the ArbCom Case
Hi Abd. My humble opinion on the current ArbCom case is that its scope is poorly defined. While I believe that few people on Wikipedia are better versed in remaining impartial and keeping discussions on track than our Arbitrators, I fear that this case has been clouded and it would be challenging (but not impossible) to deliver a result that is truly comprehensive of all issues. You are no doubt better versed in this ArbCom business than me so my humble (possibly naive) view is that you should work on clarifying scope, possibly by presenting a proposal on the Workshop page (in addition to your current proposal(s)) perhaps requesting a clear scope for the committee and possibly proposing your own scope, by listing each and every issue. Here is my outsider's list:
 * The issue of use of admin tools while involved, its seriousness, its spirit, its application
 * Was JzG an involved admin
 * Did JzG use tools
 * Was JzG involved when he used tools
 * Blacklisting/Whitelisting/Delisting issues go here, including:
 * The merit of the blacklisting (even if process wasn't properly followed)
 * Was process properly followed in the blacklisting
 * Possible grounds for reversing the blacklisting(s)

I understand I may be off-track here so please take all this with a pinch of salt, and if I'm off-track you can just say so briefly and rather spend time on the ArbCom case ;). Ciao Rfwoolf (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd-related issues go here, e.g. Vexatious litigation, etc.


 * I requested that ArbComm limit the case. I can't do that. The RfC was very narrow, about recusal. Others tossed other issues in to the pot, to be sure. I am just finishing up my Evidence, and will then turn to proposed findings and rulings. I will cover the issues above. In most cases, though, my opinion is that the issue wasn't ready for ArbComm and that trying to get a ruling from ArbComm when the community has not adequately "prepared" this issues is premature. Some of the issues are petty. Beetstra is arguing over tiny details, ignoring the elephant. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing
I summarized and collapsed two of your comments at Talk:Cold fusion. I hope I didn't chop them down too short. I also replied to another of your comments in the same section. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn! You're good at that. I don't care if it is "too short." Obviously, you read the comments, and understood them. Let me put it this way: if, then, you express disagreement, I'm going to consider it very carefully, since it's clear to me that you understood my position. What a great exercise it would be for editors opposing my views if they did the summaries instead of you. But they aren't likely to do that! Nevertheless, it points to something I can do: briefly restate an opposing position and ask if it was clear, then iterate if they claim it wasn't clear, until their position is clearly expressed and we agree on that expression. Then, if possible, take it apart (or accept it!). --Abd (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Blushes modestly/basks in the praise) Oh, you mean it would be even more useful if I summarize the posts of yours that I disagree with? In that case, putting them into a collapse box could be (seen as) a COI.
 * Wait a second: you can "briefly restate an ... position"? I thought you were claiming not to be able to do that; or, more accurately, that it takes you a very large amount of effort. I was just now searching your talk page to try to find where you had said that.  Or is it easier to summarize something someone else has said, than to summarize one's own?  Leaving it for a few hours (or even a few minutes, while working on something unrelated meanwhile) can bring a fresh perspective that makes it easier to prune out the less valuable sentences, almost as if one were editing someone else's rather than one's own precious prose; or at least, that's what happens when I do it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to COI, no. If your goal is clear expression, your POV is actually irrelevant. You should not be presumed to agree with what I've written when you summarize, and, indeed, isn't it a desirable skill in an editor to be able to summarize when reducing sources to article text? One of our biggest problems, in fact, is editors who do not accurately summarize text, warping it according to their own POV, which they then think the text supports! --Abd (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can do it, all right. Just not normally and routinely, it takes too much time. Whether I do it or not depends on many factors, and I consider it normally too inefficient, which would require further explanation. Briefly (!), it might take me an hour or more to write a long comment. It will take someone who is interested a few minutes to read it, and might not take less time even if I boil it down; in fact, it might take this interested person more time, because steps are skipped that they will have to supply themselves. Someone who is not interested isn't going to "get" either version. So why should I take the extra hour it might take to boil it down without losing significant content? However, once I have some clear goal, some very specific conclusion that I want to lead people to, I will, first of all, be better able to focus on what is truly important and what is just something encountered along the way, and, secondly, knowing a clear goal, I have a standard on which to judge particular pieces. Until I've finished exploring a topic which I do by discussing it, I don't have a predetermined conclusion. Once I do, what I write is polemic, where, indeed, brevity is the soul of wit. Some people mistake my dialectical style for attachment to POV, hence they imagine that I have some point in mind and I'm not getting to it out of laziness or lack of discipline or even obfuscatory intent. That's not it. To read my long posts, abandon any idea that I'm trying to convince you, I'm exploring a topic together with you, sharing what I've found so far, and, indeed, sharing what I find along the immediate path. Don't want to come along for the ride? Fine, no obligation. It might make you dizzy anyway. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, my effort of summarizing is small in comparison to your contribution of the information in the first place, including your insight that this was an interesting topic to explore, buying all those books etc. and digesting all that information. I'm happy to be able to share a small part of that dizzying ride. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are welcome, fasten your seat belt, the ride can get bumpy. You have, Coppertwig, training as a scientist, but also more, an ability to see beyond fixed categories and understandings. Which brings me to what I do here, and it's important enough to give it a section header --Abd (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whee! Incidentally, after wasting time hemming and hawing over whether to ask you about it first, I've gone ahead and fixed a link in a comment by you on the workshop page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What I do on Wikipedia
At various times I've been accused of being an SPA, or of pursuing an external agenda, or of owning articles (largely because of extensive comment on Talk pages, there is a beautiful example of this above, which I may leave on this Talk page as decoration, the long blue strip).

I'm not an SPA, but at any given time, I may have become interested in a particular topic. In the case of Cold fusion, before I discovered the blacklistings, my opinion or understanding of Cold fusion, like that of most generally informed citizens with an interest in science, was that it had been rejected twenty years ago and that, sure, there were diehards still carrying on research, but it wasn't worth checking out. However, in order to understand the blacklistings, I had to come up to speed on the topic; I started reading sources on-line. My, my. Things had changed. I could understand the arguments against cold fusion, they were quite reasonable on the face. However, they were being maintained beyond reason. And the more I learned, the more I experienced the frustration that someone like Pcarbonn must have felt. Media sources were repeating, frequently, allegations about cold fusion that were totally obsolete; in particular, the claim that the Pons and Flieschmann results, announced in 1989, had not been replicated. This was, in fact, a half-truth. Pons and Fleischmann made two claims: excess heat and nuclear products. The nuclear products claims were experimental artifact, later retracted. But the excess heat observations were never successfully shown to be wrong and, in fact, they were extensively confirmed, and claims to the contrary are very weak.

It took many years of work for evidence to accumulate that, in fact, there were nuclear reactions taking place that explained the excess heat, not in detail (i.e, not with some specific proven theory), but in sum. Recently, the SPAWAR findings showed, conclusively on the face that neutrons are being produced at tiny levels. But there has long been good evidence that helium is being formed, that the energy being generated is correlated with the amount of helium produced, with quite the same energy as would be predicted from deuterium fusion to helium (but alternate mechanisms that amount to fusion through another pathway can produce that same energy). And the neutrons had been reported before, but by techniques that weren't as sensitive and that were then more vulnerable to criticism as, possibly, selectively reported artifact.

Now that I know much more about Cold fusion, I have some level of duty to edit the article. I'm involved, which means I have a POV. What's been ironic about this has been that there are editors who are also involved -- often much longer than me -- who obviously also have a POV, quite strong, but who imagine that they are enforcing NPOV, as did JzG. It's true that their participation is important, but the reason is that NPOV is developed as a consensus among editors of various POVs. The alternative is to try to have article decisions made by editors who are "neutral." Unfortunately, "neutral" in a field like this is practically equivalent to "ignorant." It's another version of the famous "liberal media bias." Or "academic bias," same thing. People who are highly informed, relatively speaking, do not hold "average opinions." Among the editors who arrive with the strongest opinions are the experts! (There are also editors with very strong opinions who are ignorant, that's a quite different problem.)

When necessary, yes, an attempt is made to involve neutral editors, but, ideally, this is after documentation has been developed that outlines the nature of a dispute, so that both sides of a dispute agree that, yes, these are the issues, and this is the evidence, all that is necessary, and then a neutral party or a larger group arrives and takes the time to study the issues and evidence. And the decision made is then documented and explained, so that if there remains dispute over it, that dispute can be carefully examined to see if a better decision is possible. All this can be far more tedious than some editors have patience for, but it's necessary for an encyclopedic project to develop beyond the knee-jerk first-impression stage. Prior encyclopedias were written by writers and editors, if not experts themselves, nevertheless in close communication with experts. Wikipedia has developed tremendous breadth through the very open doors, but finding depth and keeping it (in articles where there is controversy) will require much more attention to details of process, and a wider understanding of the value of finding maximized consensus, not merely "rough consensus," which is appropriate for transient decisions, not for lasting ones.

So I move from one topic to another, like that. I could be active with Cold fusion for a long time, assuming that I don't get banned, because I was rather unusually placed to understand the issues, having a decent background in physics and chemistry and, as well, a bit of understanding of how "scientific consensus" can sometimes go astray, typically by repressing dissent through political and economic and social means, which definitely happened with cold fusion, as is well-documented in reliable source. But I'm actually more interested in consensus and how communities find it, and have had that interest for at least three decades. NPOV is the knowledge equivalent of consensus; the most reliable sign that NPOV has been found is that editors of all POVs will say, yes, this is true. (Or, here, more precisely, this is what reliable sources show, and if I disagree with the underlying facts as expressed, I know that I may have to wait for better sources to appear.) People who hold minority views are generally quite willing to acknowledge that they are minority views; with this goes an understanding that an article shouldn't be weighted toward that minority view. (Immature editors may not understand this, but, generally, they can be educated, and what is important is that, mostly, they be educated by sympathetic editors.)

Historically, communities that need to foster a sense of unity among their participants have recognized that it is worth quite a bit of effort to seek full consensus. The larger the community, the more difficult this can be, and practical compromises need to be made, but ... the goal should remain full consensus, whenever possible. Given that the community of editors working on an article is usually fairly small, full consensus, with good facilitation, should be within reach. It will fail sometimes, but those exceptions typically consist of problems with an editor who has some agenda other than a neutral and informative article. And that will show, if the process is careful. The assumption of "agenda" should not be easily made; it becomes visible when the editor's position can be seen as inflexible, making no concessions, accepting no compromises, even when facts are adduced that convince everyone else who initially agreed with this editor. Once the behavior has reached this level of obviousness, the large majority of such driven editors will quietly disappear, there are very few who will persist and insist on their doom.

"Full consensus" is a living thing, not a rigid conclusion, that's another error that's made sometimes. It should always remain open for reconsideration, but good Talk page organization (or Talk subspace) should document prior agreements, showing the arguments and evidence that resulted in broad agreement. So if a new editor arrives with some different idea, this editor can be referred to the old discussion and process and invited to correct errors or incompleteness in it. If they can find such! If all the arguments they would present are already there, what can the new editor say? And if they aren't there, then another editor or other editors assist this editor to make the documentation complete, which is then reviewed to confirm or change consensus, etc. The problem becomes one of building a background that explains why the article is the way it is, so that new editors can be efficiently integrated into a growing consensus, instead of constantly revisiting the same familiar arguments over and over, pushing Sisyphus's boulder up the hill over and over.

I'm not saying that this full process needs to occur everywhere, this is more than the project could bear at this time. But it needs to start with a few "battleground" articles, and, then, as needed, it could spread and develop and become more efficient. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary of the above comment:
 * I'm interested in consensus and how communities find it, and have had that interest for at least three decades. NPOV is the knowledge equivalent of consensus; the most reliable sign that NPOV has been found is that editors of all POVs will say, yes, this is true. (Minority opinions are presented as such.) Historically, communities that need to foster a sense of unity among their participants have recognized that it is worth quite a bit of effort to seek full consensus.
 * Consensus is a living thing, not a rigid conclusion, and prior agreements should be documented in such a way that new editors can participate by reading and possibly modifying the arguments, at times leading to review and new consensus.
 * I'm not an SPA, but at particular times I've become interested in particular topics. Before I  investigated the blacklistings, I assumed like almost everyone else that cold fusion had been rejected twenty years ago and wasn't worth checking out.  But I had to read background material to investigate the blacklistings, and discovered interesting things: for example, the Pons and Fleischmann experiments have been replicated many times.  Helium is being produced, in the right quantities if the excess heat is due to fusion. And small numbers of energetic neutrons have been detected.
 * I'm now involved in cold fusion, and have a POV. Generally, those who are more informed tend to have stronger POVs. If necessary we can involve neutral editors, later, after we've laid out the arguments clearly. These processes take time.
 * I may be involved with cold fusion for some time; but I move from article to article, being actually more interested in consensus and consensus-building processes. Abd as summarized by Coppertwig 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, speaking of consensus-building processes: I've just posted a proposal at WT:IPCOLL based on your suggestion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difficulty in implementing ideas like this is that it runs contrary to expectations, and to confine it properly, you'd need consensus on that, which may be very difficult to obtain. So it may take mediators, editors who will do the work of summarization of arguments, and then the problem reduces to making sure that each side considers that its arguments have fairly been represented. If editors can work on clarifying and completing arguments of the side that is not their own, great, but I don't think it will be possible, practically, to limit participation as suggested. Still, you can try, and the group working on this can nudge it that way. Further, if RfC/RfAr practice is followed, but with some additional flexibility, the group working on the summary can make sure that arguments aren't covered up with threaded argument. I've tried to start processes like this in my user space, because, there, I can be a "process chair," and I can revert and refactor at will, as long as I don't distort someone's comments. I can remove them entirely if I want. Anyone willing to mediate can do this; the ideal person should be generally preceived as fair and neutral, but, because there is nothing preventing more than one person from starting up a process like this, if someone does it and abuses the user page privileges, other editors can simply go away and ignore it. In the end, when there seems to be a local consensus, a result can be moved to article Talk space and become a FAQ on the issue, subject to further contributions and refinement. It may be better to use Wikiproject (Wikipedia) subspace, because there can be a FAQ in project space that is maintained as a consensus document, with a Talk page for discussion of it. The latter is probably best. Alternatively, a user page can be cited from article talk and permanent link given to a consensus version. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Words of advice
As always abd thanks you for the words of advice. The boxes are a great idea. I am busy lately and have already made most of the changes on the ADHD pages that I see fit. LG is continuing on. He is a good editor. Anyway cheers.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite
Moved from User talk:Abd/IP --Abd (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) One of the things I’ve never understood about Hypocrite is how he can abuse multiple socks (like all of these IPs he used on the Cold Fusion article ), and like his PoupononToast account which was an abuse account, with a block log as long as your arm, and which he was allowed to change on the proviso he would avoid controversy, and yet still be able to return to an old account and pretend he’s almost never been blocked. Molto Cipolle (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a tangled web. User:Hipocrite, User:Hipocrite (usurped), User:DepartedUser, User:PouponOnToast. Pile of IPs.


 * I'm gonna need a program to figure this out. Weirdest thing I ever saw. Does anyone have a link to the discussion of the change? Because this has been one disruptive user recently.


 * Okay,


 * The plot thickens. Names are being named.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Completed/12#DepartedUser_.E2.86.92_Hipocrite

--Abd (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for reference. DepartedUser was moved to Hipocrite and all the contributions were moved with it, after the move it has only made three contributions, none of them being content edits Special:Contributions/DepartedUser. "Hipocrite_(usurped)" was moved and then was impersonated by a troll who made a few trolling edits that appear on the contributions Special:Contributions/Hipocrite_(usurped). Hipocrite's block log is still at "Hipocrite_(usurped)"


 * The last few blocks in his log are a bit... well... he requested to be blocked indef by making some sort of bogus legal threat so he would be blocked under WP:NLT . He then withdrew his legal threat, but he made a clarification that he hadn't really withdrawn it, so he was reblocked, and he had to withdraw it again. this shows the withdrawings and reblocking quite well. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There were two prior "Hipocrite" accounts. It's complicated enough that I don't trust my memory, as I wrote, I'll need a program. Yes, the later of the prior accounts was an impersonation account, that's User:Hipocrite (usurped). But there was also User:PouponOnToast. When I saw the recent disruptive behavior, I looked at the present Hipocrite account and sure missed all this history, which is, my opinion, exactly why all these transformations were made, to conceal history. Normally, I'd expect to see full history, particularly when it is so recent, shown on the user page. Then there are those asserted socks. What I see is closed investigations without conclusion; given the ScienceApologist history, I suspect administrative bias is involved. But it will take a lot of work to develop anything over this, work that I usually don't do unless the problem rises to major significance and can be seen as doing ongoing damage. At this point, Hipocrite is a minor nuisance, mostly at Cold fusion, his claims at the RfAr are so preposterous that they attracted practically no attention. Enric, I'm confident that we can resolve issues at Cold fusion, just as we did at Martin Fleischmann, through patient and careful discussion, with outside attention coming in when the small circle can't handle it. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, the new editor who provided the report to me is probably a sock of a blocked editor, I place no credence in the report itself, beyond what I can confirm directly. I moved it here from my open IP talk page because of it's relevance to current events. I also make no assumption about the character of blocked editors; many I have encountered, the ones who still care enough about Wikipedia to try to evade blocks, were improperly blocked. Very slowly, I'm trying to clean this up. (The problem isn't simply that they were innocent, they generally weren't, but that there would be a conflict, both sides were uncivil or violated guidelines, but one side is blocked as a way to "resolve the dispute," which, obviously, it doesn't. It just pops up with new faces or old faces with masks on, creating even more disruption.) --Abd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PouponOnToast is the main sock account with about 1275 edits, way more than the other socks (User:MOASPN only had 80 contribs and the rest less than a dozen edits each), and its block log is full of incivility blocks


 * Also, I see that both the SPI and the ANI thread were closed to the satisfaction of the participants, with some indicating that no further action was necessary unless this person started again using alternative accounts. Sorry, but I expect you to drop all initiatives about this unless you have proof that Hipocrite has started using socks again, in which case you should go directly to either ANI or SPI. That the user's block log was left at an old account for some reason is unrelated to his disagreement with you over the cold fusion article. Your comments above sound too much like a Damocles sword over Hipocrite's head, as in "if you cause enough trouble in Talk:Cold fusion, then I'll have to start investigating your past" (not a quote). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. There has been no initiative, so there is nothing to drop. This isn't a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over Hipocrite's head, I have no idea that he's even reading this page. I just wrote that what he's doing at Cold fusion is only a minor nuisance, I wouldn't investigate based on that. I'm more concerned about massive disruption at Arbitration Enforcement, this last week in the RfAr/Abd and JzG, and his activities (related) to assist with SA's disruptive intention to discredit ArbComm. And, right now, I'm doing nothing on this besides putting here what was dropped on my IP editor page and starting to look at it a little. Thanks for the links, Enric. Now, go away. You are not being helpful. One more thing. The last time I started looking at an account like this, the outcome was that the account was blocked as a sock of a very abusive user. My point is not that Hipocrite is that, I don't know that and don't have any evidence, but that the same "defenses" were raised, i.e., a counter-attack on me for even daring to look at the evidence. This tends to get me excited and to go ahead on the implied dare: go to ANI or SPI (the former, probably). Don't troll for reports to ANI, please. --Abd (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As EN said, this discussion is unnecessary and seems to be an attempt at intimidating an editor you are currently involved in a content dispute with - it amounts to hounding, while masquerading as a conversation with an obvious bad-hand account. I'd advise you to remove it and to stop enabling banned editors and obvious socks, trolls and assorted detritus. Your language and analogies are threatening, and you really should drop it. What are you trying to achieve? (rhetorical, please don't answer - just remove this section) Verbal   chat  15:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah. Edit conflict indeed. Verbal, go away and stay away. Think this is overreaction? Find a neutral mediator. Otherwise, your involvement in this is harassment and will be treated as such. If you need to warn me about something, find someone neutral to do it. --Abd (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite neutral on and in this. And frankly your statements "the plot thickens" "Because this has been one disruptive user recently." etc. sound quite threatening. And i have to agree with Verbal and Enric Naval, that either you do 1) come out immediately and state your suspicions (if you have any), 2) take it offline and thereby not invoke any feelings of intimidation 3) drop it. And most certainly you shouldn't tell people to buzz off with more threats when they are giving you friendly advice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * KDP, you aren't neutral, you have taken some consistent positions in opposition to what I do. I do not plan to waste time justifying what I've done here, unless there is what I've suggested, neutral intervention, and that isn't you, unfortunately, even if your intention is friendly. The advice from Enric might have been friendly, I can allow that, but it has to be seen in the context of efforts to get me topic banned, which he supported. Verbal's was clearly not, he's been entirely hostile for quite some time. I responded to Enric's first post with AGF and in a friendly manner. His second post went overboard. Then Verbal popped in, and then you. This is my Talk page. If you have a complaint about my behavior, and I've ended the discussion here, I presume you know what to do. I've given you a nondisruptive way to do it, you could choose more disruptive ways if you like. Now, unless you'd like to continue and moderate any possible extension of the issues discussed in this section, stop on this topic. I'm not defining your intervetion here as harassment, not based on this one post. --Abd (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling people to "go away" and accusing them of harassment for expressing opposing viewpoints to yours isn't really a way to gain sympathy for your position. If you want the freedom of speech to write long rants expressing your own viewpoints, you ought to grant similar rights to others. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dan. I understand you want to help. However, I don't tell "people" to "go away," just certain people, very few. The issue is not the expression of opposing viewpoints, the issue is argument that has gone beyond that and that I see is not likely at all to proceed to a resolution. This is my user page, and I do not grant total freedom here. The page is protected, you might notice, because it had to be. I haven't accused anyone of harassment. Yet. I've warned, just now, two editors that if they post here again without permission (which they would have to get through some intermediary, you are welcome to volunteer, Dan), I may consider it harassment. I can do that, it's legitimate (and it doesn't prevent them from giving me required notices). The issues being raised by Verbal, in particular, are settled issues, and that they are raised I see as hostile. The comments by both Enric and Verbal were gratuitous, unnecessary, and protecting, on the face, one of the more abusive editors at the moment, not from harassment, that's preposterous, but simply from being examined. Enric is cooperative in certain ways at certain times, but has also supported calls for my topic ban, based on ... what? ... and, I'm sorry, I don't take that as a friendly gesture.


 * Having said that, Dan, if you think I should delete this section, I'll do it. I can look at and collect information off-line, and spring it, lotus-born, if it's needed. I can share it with anyone I want by email. I can ask for information to come to me by email. Enric provided some useful pointers, initially, and his first comment was taken as friendly, and responded to in that way. Editors who follow my work should understand that one of the most effective ways, though, to encourage me to collect and use information is to make vague threats to try to stop it. Or not-so-vague threats. Both Verbal and Hipocrite have threatened me with this or that, of "proxying for a banned user," based on actions which weren't "proxying" at all, but, so far, no real action. I'm already before ArbComm with laundry lists of complaints against me, what are they going to do, call up Jimbo? Do they think I'd be blocked over examining, on my Talk page, something coming from an alleged sock of somebody I don't know who, but who is trying to warn me about an editor who could, indeed, be seen as harassing me? Would I be sanctioned over a few words of ambiguous meaning like "the plot thickens?" Verbal has challenged Molto Cipolle (User talk:Molto Cipolle) over whether or not the account has precedent accounts, as if this were something smart to ask. The question I'd ask is why Verbal bothers, why the time is being spent to do that? The only reason I can think of is politics: Hipocrite is seen as a friend. And someone who sees that user as a friend, deserving of such protection, given how much Hipocrite dishes out, now and in the past, given what's come down, is on the dark side, and I don't want them here. Were I posting harassment on Hipocrite Talk, following him around and intervening wherever he posts, that would be quite another matter. But just to look at and wonder at the tangled web of his account history? Dan, you surprise me. The politics here suck. SA continued so long, as disruptive as he was, because he was protected by "friends." Tango was desysopped because his "friends" "supported" him when he was wrong. This isn't about SA, and I blame the "friends" more than I blame SA, who was just doing what he would do, and he was quite open about it.


 * So, Dan, you have earned the right to criticize me, and just because I think you need to go soak your head doesn't mean that I don't appreciate it, nor that I won't listen to you. I'll write this much for you, not for them, and that's why I asked them to "go away," I don't want to waste my time with them any more. I'll deal civilly and properly with them on article Talk and elsewhere, but they are not welcome here. KDP didn't go beyond limits, so no darken-my-door-no-more there. Now, what were we up to? --Abd (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal welcome to post here.
Due to an off-wiki overture, Verbal is welcome to post to this page. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise on my page. Yours, Verbal   chat  06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Spam blacklist
There is a bit of a 'guideline' for the local blacklisting process on Spam blacklist. It was now suggested in the workshop that that should be rewritten or updated. I have started Spam blacklist/Rewrite, and I would welcome your comments, critisism, etc. there. I would like to include some of the very grey areas that we encounter, though more on 'how to handle', than to put them into rules. I would also like to try to document the 'hard' exceptions to regular spam, which nonetheless 'should' be blacklisted (like the redirect sites, malware sites, spam-incentive sites etc.). Hope to see you around there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding an earlier thing here, I also want to say, if you need my attention, you can poke me on my talkpage, but I would like to ask you to keep the discussions short and to the point. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Beetstra. I'll do that. However: fair warning. I reserve the right to use as many bytes with my posts as you do in what I'm responding to, okay? Let's be meticulous with this; the last thing I'd want to do is make the job of the antispam volunteers more difficult, but, of course, my goal has also been to "gentle" and "contain" the process so that it doesn't harm the community, content, or normal editorial process. For most editors, encountering a site they want to use that is blacklisted, that's the end of it, so when a significant site in a field is blacklisted, it has an enduring impact on content. And I really think it won't be difficult to fix this, but first we need some answers from ArbComm. As you know, I thought the matter wasn't ripe for arbitration, and I really think that ArbComm's habit of trying to resolve many questions in one arbitration is a classic error that actually decreases efficiency as well as the quality of the decisions. (Presented with a case that raises a dozen issues, ArbComm could split the case immediately, some issues might be resolved very quickly and easily, but they gunk up more difficult aspects.) And issues that aren't ripe are issues that will generate tons of ill-considered comment and they are best left to lower levels of DR, as would have happened if they didn't happen to get linked with a case ready for arbitration. (For example, if I'm disruptive at Cold fusion, which I think some are preparing to assert or have asserted, this has nothing to do with JzG's behavior.) There are two issues with regard to blacklisting. Was JzG's blacklisting behavior appropriate, and what about the usage of the blacklist for content control? They are really quite different questions, and the answer to one does not greatly impact the answer to the other; only with respect to some narrow arguments would they overlap. In the end, what JzG did is irrelevant to blacklisting policy going forward, except possibly as an example, and because of other abusive aspects of his behavior, a distracting one. I don't think I'd raise his behavior again in the context you are setting up, unless someone posts something preposterous but plausible-sounding and JzG's case is a clear counterexample. And I'd be careful not to overuse it. --Abd (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

MgATP cyclotron
Have you considered adding this information from the biological transmutation article to the adenosine triphosphate or cyclotron article? Solomon Goldfein who noted that MgATP (Magnesium-Adenosine Triphosphate) had the configuration of a cyclotron on a molecular scale. Report 2247 (May 1978), "Energy Development from Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems" for the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command, Ft. Belvoir, Va. Goldfein Why waste all you insight on cold fusion.--OMCV (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't write that article and, while that report may possibly be relevant there in the article on biological transmutation (not if you ask me, on the face, but then, I haven't read the source and don't know the context, etc.), it's not of sufficient notability -- or cogency -- to put in the other articles. Now, OCMV, if you have any serious business, related to improving the encyclopedia, you are welcome to post here. Otherwise, please stay away and don't waste my time. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mills
You consider Mills to be serious? You know I think he's a fraud, but enough about me. I honestly want to know what you think of millsian. How can you take this serious? Passing off these virtual legos as computational chemistry is blatant lie. This isn't a knee jerk, I downloaded the software and followed the instructions. I can personally verify this software as fraudulent. Furthermore, physicists say his other theories are fraudulent. Looks like fraud all around.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on Mills, beyond general suspicion. It appears that you do. Why would you want me to evaluate bad software? And then form a conclusion about the physics of someone involved with it? --Abd (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I glanced at your last post and saw that you mentioned Blacklight again.  I don't read all of your posts since you tend to post an excessive amount of text.  I assumed you supported Mills since you support Storm and Storm supports hydrino theory, to quote you "the hydrino theory that Storms seems to favor".   Hydrino theory is Mills' theory and the core of his fraud; Storm's support of hydrino theory, even a modified version, taints his work.  Any reasonable argument for CF is going to be free from hydrino, Blacklight, Mills, biological transmutation, and Borckris at the very least.--OMCV (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You assume a lot. I don't "support Storms," it's not personal. Storms is reliable source of a kind that requires caution: he is clearly affiliated with cold fusion research. However, who should write a book on the topic? Someone who has no experience with it? Storms isn't simply editorializing, expressing his opinions, he shows the basis for those opinions with meticulously referenced text. As with any review of the field, he cites research according to his opinion of what is relevant, and this, then, gives us a guide to what is notable in the field. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion, and even more -- much more -- if we allow conference papers. He can use conference papers, we can't, but if he cites them, that makes them sufficiently notable for our reference. Because of the position of the field as to "general opinion" -- very unclearly defined -- we have to present everything in the field as controversial, including what is quite well-established, such as excess heat. If you don't think excess heat is reasonably well-established, you should read the 2004 DoE review again, and I could cite reliable sources that the work is sound. The claim that it's all junk research, quite simply, can't be supported from any solid source, only from what are, really, tertiary sources as Hipocrite is now using at the article, in place of the much stronger Storms reference, which is a secondary source. It's like the media reports that Fleischmann's work was never replicated.


 * In fact, the core claim, that excess heat was found when setting up highly-loaded palladium deuteride, has been confirmed over and over. The original radiation claims were bogus. The research finding neutrons at moderate levels was bogus, artifact and error. The claim that the origin is nuclear, and in particular that it is "fusion," is unproven. In other words, OCMV, I'm quite with the 2004 DOE review, except that the field has shifted since then, the evidence for nuclear effect is stronger, a clear and consistent pattern has emerged from a review of all the research, such that negative replications typically, now, can be seen as confirmations of a general hypothesis forming, but no clear proof that the basic process is fusion.


 * For example, the SPAWAR group shows energetic neutrons. The work is solid and published. Aspects of it have been confirmed, and I am, indeed, assuming that there will be more confirmation; their work, over almost twenty years, has been quite solid and conservative, they've done proper controls, etc. The levels, however, are very low, and this kind of phenomenon has always been used as an argument against cold fusion: there are all these apparently contradictory experiments. I was just reading yesterday one protest that "all these experiments produce different amounts of heat, how come there is no consistency?" "So what if you find neutrons, this is inconsistent with the reported heat."


 * Actually, it isn't. What that shows is that neutrons aren't involved in whatever is generating the heat, but that the energy source, what I call the black box, is capable of creating conditions where a little hot fusion takes place. For example, take the Be-8 hypothesis. That will generate energetic alphas at 23.8 MeV. These can cause some hot fusion to take place at a low level, indeed, it would be expected. The alphas are found, confirmed, Miles et al's work showed, way back, that helium generation is correlated with excess heat. No excess heat, no helium. Excess heat, helium, in an amount proportional to the excess heat, and the ration is at 25 +/- 5 MeV, as reported by Storms and others. Krivit thinks this is a bogus figure, but I'm not convinced that Krivit understands the problem. If you don't capture all the helium, you will get a higher figure, and that is, indeed, what is found, but with some experiments, great care has been exercised to detect all the helium, and that gets us tightly toward the expected figure from d-d helium fusion, 23.8 MeV.


 * One writer put this way: Fleischmann didn't just discover some isolated island, that could be specified by simple coordinates, he found an entire continent, and those who try to find the island find different things, their reports vary all over the map, literally. We do not know to what extent low-energy nuclear reactions are possible. Storms details a list of observations that it would be desirable for a CF theory to explain. This does not mean that he thinks all these findings are artifact-free.


 * Elemental transformation under conditions that produce the excess heat phenomena is now quite well confirmed, overall. The field suffers from a lack of highly specific confirmation; this results from the conditions under which the work has been done. Researchers don't want to, at this point, waste their time doing exactly what everyone else has done, they want to try different approaches. For years the holy grail was an experimental design that produces excess heat 100% of the time. Garwin said that he'd be satisfied with 50%. Asked recently, his goal became 100%. 100% is now being reported by various groups, including, I think, the SPAWAR group, using co-deposition. Excess heat and other phenomena are generated immediately, without the weeks or months of deuterium loading necessary for a P-F cell.


 * This shifting of the goalposts by Garwin is typical of response to the field. When Garwin said "50%," he was dead certain that this goal wouldn't be reached. But the fact is that he'd dead certain that cold fusion is bogus, and he will quite likely be dead before he revises his opinion. If then! It's fascinating to read Huizenga with the benefit of almost twenty years of hindsight. What he asserts as evidence that the cold fusion work is total junk is actually the opposite, he simply couldn't understand it, and put together a picture that fit his beliefs. Everybody was looking for neutrons, at first, but, in fact, neutrons were only present at very low levels, and so, indeed, as controls and rigor improved, the results went away, mostly. Thus the common claim that "as experiments got stronger, results disappeared." But that was the case with neutrons. Not with excess heat. And not with alpha radiation. And not with a truly low level of neutrons. (10 neutron tracks on a piece of CR-37 after weeks of cell operation may seem like a low level, one can imagine all sorts of artifacts, but the background in these experiments is about 1 track. The excess tracks aren't present with controls, only with active CF cells. There is a reason Naturwissenschaften published this work. There are actually real scientists still reviewing papers, and publications which don't prejudge experimental reports by the results, but rely on their reviewers.)


 * Now, if we can arrange a metal lattice such that some environment is created at the surface that catalyzes or causes low-level nuclear reactions, could proteins, which can catalyze many different kinds of reactions, manage it? It is truly easy to knee-jerk reject the possibility, it seems preposterous. However, as you know, Vyosotskii has reported just that, with some quite solid experimental design; the fly in the ointment is that nobody has replicated his work, to my knowledge. And it's obvious why! It's because of the knee-jerk reaction! The paper Hipocrite targeted with his silly poll was not one that could be cited, but there are others that could, because of mention in Storms. However, the work in that paper was over a reported acceleration in radioactive decay cause, apparently, by certain bacteria. Is this possible? Easy to say, no, for someone not expert in the field. However, it's known that chemical configurations can, indeed, reduce the half-life of elements, that actually isn't controversial. That doesn't translate to proof!!! It merely means that the idea is not as preposterous as it might seem at first glance.


 * There is no evidence I've been able to find that anyone has tried to replicate Vyosotskii's work; getting some of the radiation-resistant bacteria that he used and a Mossbauer spectrograph wouldn't be difficult, and CF conferences welcome negative reports as well as positive ones, and some CF researchers would breathe a sigh of relief if the Vyosotskii results were shown to be artifact. They would prefer not to be associated with such fringe science! --Abd (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So does Storm base a significant portion of his ideas of the fraudulent hydrino theories that originated with Mills? Incorporation of such ideas is indicative of poor judgment on Storm's part.  While you don't necessarily support Storm you do support his judgment, right?  Also, the predicted limits on how a) chemical catalysis can influence chemical rates and the predicted limits on b) the extent to which chemical configurations can influence radio active half-lives are very different.  Equivocating them is ridiculous or at least science fiction.  Thanks for proving my point about your propensity of providing a lot of verbage; I know your probably being funny.  Have a good one.--OMCV (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So does Storm base a significant portion of his ideas of the fraudulent hydrino theories that originated with Mills?
 * Short answer: No. I think you should read the last material reverted out by Hipocrite et al. Storms says that no theory accounts for all the observed phenomena and satisfies all the conditions he states. The book is not about "Storms' ideas." It's about the state of research into what appear to be low energy nuclear reactions. Overall, it's quite objective. Storms, when he speculates, states that, i.e., it's easy to tell the difference between his reports of research results and his speculations. I don't consider Storms, necessarily, as an unbiased source, but neither is he a blatantly POV source. He's fairly reporting the theoretical problems, and so forth.
 * Do you have reliable source for your claims that the hydrino theories are fraudulent? They may be, certainly I'm suspicious but, as you know, we require sources, and for science, we require strong sources, not mere speculation. I assume you are aware of peer-reviewed publication of those theories? I believe that we should cover the theories (as we do, to some extent, at Blacklight Power.) Do you have peer-reviewed material to balance this?
 * Millsian this should be more than enough to indicate that significant portion of Mills work is fraudulent.--OMCV (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . Summary of objection to Millsian: It correctly predicts a set of heats of formation, where classical theory falls down. And this can be suspected to be salting the mine: they simply optimized the software to match those particular outputs. However, what happens when someone applies it to something not on the list. Let's see.... how about palladium deuteride? More seriously, don't you think such a scam would eventually become obvious? From the mailing list discussion, it's not obvious yet. --Abd (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To some the failings of a water fuelled car other still think Stanley Meyer had something. Even if Millsian has faked the energies they have not faked the geometries for which Millsian does nothing to predict.  Its not a matter of this becoming obvious, the mainstream computation chemistry people have complete ignored this work.  Its not worth their time to debunk.  The only people who give it any time are folks on the internet.--OMCV (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While you don't necessarily support Storm you do support his judgment, right?
 * His judgment about what? It's not my opinion of his judgment that counts, it's the judgment of an independent publisher of scientific texts, World Scientific, that counts. That publication indicates notability, not matter what you or I might personally think. I don't know Storms, and I think his idea about spontaneous human combustion possibly being connected with some biological fusion reaction -- which is clearly stated as a kind of "what if" speculation -- showed poor judgment, politically. Scientifically, on the topic of the book, he seems to know his stuff, and he should, with his qualifications and experience. One of the problems with cold fusion research that Simon notes: because you and your entire field of research has been ostracized, you become reluctant to ostracize others, to reject anything out of hand, since that is what is being done with you and your work.


 * Also, the predicted limits on how a) chemical catalysis can influence chemical rates and the predicted limits on b) the extent to which chemical configurations can influence radio active half-lives are very different. 
 * Storms did not make the point, about influence over half-life, as I recall, I did. Tell me, is science about assuming that "predicted limits" are accurate, or is it about testing them? If the view that low energy nuclear reactions are impossible is "scientific," how could it be falsified? As it happens, we know it's false, because of muon-catalyzed fusion. Is some other form of catalysis or reaction possible? You seem to have the view that no other form is possible. Do you have reliable source on that, or did you make it up? Where is the proof?


 * Your comment seems somewhat incoherent, I'm not sure what you intended to say, was there a typo? The point about "chemical" influence on radioactive half-lives is that the Vyosotskii work that was being examined was about that, not about cold fusion, Hipocrite apparently had no idea what he was dealing with. You are supporting, OCMV, ignorance over knowledge. Basically, you assume that your own ignorance, what you don't know, is knowledge, that what you do not know is adequate proof of the absence of what you don't understand. While that may make you more comfortable, it is not the basis for the encyclopedia, which is human knowledge, not human ignorance. Got reliable source on it, you can put it in and you can make it part of the basis for a judgment of due weight.


 * My point on limits is that it keeps us from wasting our time trying to create things that can't be created. It also keeps us from wasting time and resources by repeating work.  I've argued over a lot of electrolysis based perpetual motion machines on Wikipedia.  If folks understood the limits of the situation better there might have been no need to argue.  But your arguing the nature of limits here which means that we are losing common ground.  My understanding is that limits are usually ground in a lot of empirical evidence.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have no great theoretical underpinning, they are substantiated because we have never seen them contradicted.  When I said there is a predicted limit to how much chemical configurations can effect half-life, I meant to say not only have we never seen a radioactive half-life influenced more than a few percent this magnitude of influence is also substantiated by our best theory.  Sorry about my grammar.--OMCV (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you confuse efficiency with proof; that is, holding certain established principles as not to be question creates a kind of efficiency, it avoids wasting time investigating every wacko report, or, for that matter, sober experimental claims that are probably artifacts. But the latter are really a door into the possible expansion of what is known. Something so well-established as the laws of thermodynamics, for example, may be the most common case, but there may exist special cases (and, indeed there do, but they are almost certainly not practically exploitable). However, cold fusion and other low energy nuclear phenomena do not "violate" what is well-known, for what is well-known is not actually positive knowledge, it is ignorance. Ignorance of exception is never proof that there is no exception. Rather, it is simply a guide to efficient work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; what has been missed, though, is that this isn't a proof; i.e., if "extraordinary evidence" is missing, it is no proof of error in the claim. It is merely the absence of evidence sufficient to justify investigation by most. When, however, this rational and natural skepticism extends to the point that evidence is ignored by all, except those who do investigate and confirm, and then the majority reject the entire body of research on the basis of the "extraordinary evidence" principle, efficiency has become, bluntly, fascism. It's circular. It's rejected because there is no convincing evidence, and there is no convincing evidence because claims of evidence continue to be rejected because of the extraordinary principle.


 * By 2004, it was clear, and is shown in the DoE report that year, that the evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions was considerable. Absolutely, at that point it could not be claimed to be "conclusive." However, neither could it be claimed to be "rejected." Rather, the panel recommended further research to resolve the questions. Some of that research has been done, and some of it had already been done, in fact, and the claim that it wasn't adequately considered by the panel is reasonable. The panel worked under close time restraints, unlike the normal scientific review process, which takes considerable time and involves very close and detailed consideration of claims. Fringe issues are not considered fully resolved until the reasons for artifact are shown, preferably with strong evidence, not a mere suspicion (such as suspicion that excess heat is due to, say, failure to stir, or calibration constant shift, or reporting bias, etc.). The error of the scientific community, and it's your error as well, was to confuse absence of conclusive evidence as evidence of absence. As to our article, the reason we are having this discussion, if we simply follow RS guidelines and apply them neutrally, not affiliating with either side, we'll be fine. We need pay special attention to Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which was a sound decision as far as it goes; the only problems I see with it is that "mainstream" isn't defined and there are certain unresolved contradictions. AC does not anticipate conflicts, and only resolves a portion of what comes before it, preferring that the community resolve issues through normal consensus process, i.e., dispute resolution; when this is done, the issues are mature and ready for a conclusive determination.


 * Many have confused the overall statement in the review, which did not come from the reviewers, that the overall conclusions were similar to 1989 with some kind of rejection, and that's because the perception is widespread that the 1989 review was exactly such a rejection, and that perception is heavily influenced by Huizenga's personal views, as published. But that summary statement is about the actual recommendations, not the science. Cold fusion may never be useful as a practical source of energy, and this has little to do with the basic scientific facts; and, in fact, the lack of that cold fusion home hot water heater is considerable evidence of impracticality, but no evidence at all of the lack of low energy nuclear reactions. There isn't a muon-catalyzed fusion hot water heater" either, and, indeed, I think that muon-catalyzed fusion hasn't even produce detectable heat (unless, somehow, muons are involved in P-F cold fusion and the like, which is unlikely. Thus the conclusion that, absent stronger evidence that the effect is real, and possibly some clues as to how to scale it up and make it reliable, remains reasonable. Some think, and I agree, that we've passed the tipping point on evidence, and that, even if commercial practicality is unlikely, is a long shot, it would be worth greatly expanded funding of basic research on this. One of the fundamental goals of such research would be to prove that the effects are artifacts, and this should be vigorously attempted. Are you beginning to see the problem, OMCV, or am I wasting my time by replying to you?


 * ''Thanks for proving my point about your propensity of providing a lot of verbage; I know your probably being funny. Have a good one.
 * OMCV, you have insulted your host. This amounts to harassment, it is not intended to find consensus, but to ridicule. So, go away, don't come back to this Talk page unless you are prepared to apologize. --Abd (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought you were being funny. Thanks for addressing my concerns directly.--OMCV (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, you are welcome. Have some tea. --Abd (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, to the substance:. If this is a scam, they sure know how to talk. Here is what the cold fusion affair is teaching us: on the one hand, the most commonly-repeated claim for the improbability of cold fusion, the reason to disregard the experimental results, is that there is supposedly no coherent theory that explains the results. Here comes a theory that purports to explain the results, and it purports to predict and explain other experimental results. Now, is the theory true or false? To find out, one has to do real science, not simply sputter that it's impossible, and we couldn't have been wrong for eighty years. It's being claimed that QM is "exact." I sat with Feynman, as I think you know. QM is not exact, not in a practical sense, the math is impossibly complex when it runs into multibody problems, I learned that from Feyman, I must have been about seventeen or eighteen years old. So while I'm not qualified to judge the details, I do have friends who would be, and who also have open minds, and whom, I think, I will ask. What I can tell is that the argumentation is that of someone with a clearer overall perspective on science and on how it should work, and on the history of QM. Fraud? Maybe. One very, very skilled con artist, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)