Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn

Hold on, not so fast if you please
I don't regularly edit at Cold Fusion and so I only just now noticed this case. I know enough about this situation to know that the usual suspects at that venue have now just piled on in an attempt to ram through a topic ban as quickly as possible. His previous Arbcom sanction is now moot and, having honored that sanction and abided by its terms he is now being railroaded again? Hardly seems fitting, IMHO. I would suggest that due diligence should be given to this editor's case based on actual evidence and not the politically motivated rantings of his enemies.

I would respectfully ask FP to hold off on any such declaration or enforcement of this topic ban until a full hearing of the actual evidence against this individual can be heard. With do respect, advocating an opinion is NOT a bannable offense and, even if it were, the same could be said of ALL of his political enemies who have now just piled on in order to give the appearance of a community consensus.

I would ask a reasonable amount of time to gather some evidence since I am not already familiar with the details of Pcarbonn's edits since his prior sanction expired. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: No recent evidence.
Reading JzG's opening statement above I not that the only diffs provided are more than a year old and have not only already been ruled on but the sanction imposed has already been paid. The evidence presented thus far has already considered by Arbcom who specifically judged that it only warranted a 1 year topic ban, not an indefinite one. What has happened since that ban expired to justify it's being extended? If there is some recent evidence, let's see it. If not, this topic ban should be overturned for lack of any recent supporting evidence whatsoever. --GoRight (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of Pcarbonn's edits since the expiration of the original ban have been to the talk page, true. There, he has continued agressively advocating his opinion that cold fusion holds more weight than it does, such as his attempt to cite a fictional story to support his POV. He also immediately jumps into pressuring editors with opposing viewpoints, such as this edit  under the topic 'Why Anti-CF?'. All additional edits to the talk page also further his agenda, referenced above. As noted here - the original discussion - by the arbitrators, "disruption to articles can be caused without editing the articles themselves", and "he [Pcarbonn] should know that whether the ban is ultimately 6 months or one year, he is likely to be topic-banned permanently in short order should he resume inappropriate editing following the ban".
 * Per WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV, strongly advocating a WP:FRINGE position to such an extent that neutral editors are driven away is disruptive. As bans and blocks are preventative, not punative, I believe (as an uninvolved admin who has never once edited any of these pages, afaik) that this topic ban extension is the only way of preventing further disruption, and thus was appropriate. Cheers, A le_Jrb talk  20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "There, he has continued agressively advocating his opinion that cold fusion holds more weight than it does, such as his attempt to cite a fictional story to support his POV." - Well let's examine this comment in context which is what we are here to do, after all.  First, it is a comment made on the talk page.  Is this not what potentially WP:COI editors are encouraged to do?  So for following the rules you would argue this user should be banned?  I note also that you comment seems to imply that his assertion was based ONLY on a fictitious story.  That seems rather disingenuous when one observes (a) that the story was published in a Nature, and (b) that at the end of his comment he provides additional sources to support his main point which is that there have been explosions documented as part of these experiments.  None of this is disruptive or inappropriate as far as I can see and yet you would topic ban him for it.  I fond that curious but WP:AGF requires that I assume you had somehow missed these facts on your first invesitgation and review. I note also that you label this comment as "aggressive" in pushing a POV.  Can you please elaborate on what makes this comment particularly aggressive?  --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "He also immediately jumps into pressuring editors with opposing viewpoints, such as this edit under the topic 'Why Anti-CF?'. All additional edits to the talk page also further his agenda, referenced above." - I find this particular example dumbfounding.  Pcarbonn's contribution in this edit consists of:


 * "I suspect that this sentence was taken personally by Olorinish : "I believe the controversy is, at root, caused by the financial interests of "big science" plasma fusion researchers who have been promising commercial viability since the 1950s but have been unable to deliver because of too many fast neutrons. " You may want to rephrase it. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)"


 * and this was under the section heading "Articles on nuclear reactions" not "Why Anti-CF?" as you assert. I may be wrong, but Pcarbonn's contribution here appears to be one of seeking to smooth over a dispute between other editors.  He is pointing to the place where he thinks a conflict may have arisen and encourages the other editor to rephrase.  This is your example of bannable behavior?  Seriously?


 * This only highlights the rush to judgment that has been occurring here and underscores why a slow and deliberate examination of the evidence is in order. --GoRight (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In this edit Pcarbonn used a very provocative heading for his new section, and then later changed it. I haven't read the text, but it seems likely that the first heading was not an accurate description. Later he posted "I'm suggesting to include statements explaining that failed replications do not matter" which is ridiculous. Failed replications are the heart of the problem with cold fusion's bad reputation. An indefinite ban for him is the right decision. Olorinish (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is the same edit described and discussed above. It is one edit on a talk page.  Is this the heading that you consider "provocative" the one in this edit: "Nature Magazine finally acknowledges the possibility of low energy nuclear reactions"?  Now I admit that I am not a regular on the Cold Fusion talk page so perhaps there is some history here that is not obvious from the title itself, but on its face that is hardly what I would call provocative or offensive in any way.  Actually, given that the comment itself is about a fictitious story this appears to be more of a joke than a provocation.  Am I wrong?  Please explain how this is provocative.  I'm not being pushy here, I honestly don't see that as being provocative and certainly not ban worthy, so please fill in the missing pieces to support your assertion.  --GoRight (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GoRight, I have had a lot of disagreements with Pcarbonn over the past 3 years, and I am not inclined to cut him any more slack. He tried to use wikipedia as his own personal propaganda sheet, which is just plain wrong considering the effort other people have made to build it up. It is all there in the record, so you can go check it out. He has misled people about the contents of documents before, in order to get his way, which is why I strongly suspect he did it again here. Maybe he was trying to be funny, but that is simply not the way to behave just after being allowed back on wikipedia. Olorinish (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 2: Single purpose account
JzG states above:


 * "There is no evidence of Pcarbonn's having "directed his efforts elsewhere". As far as I am concerned, this makes him a single purpose or agenda account."

As JzG is fully aware there is no shame in being a single purpose account, nor is there any requirement that editors are only welcome to contribute in a broad based fashion. Where is the policy against being a single purpose account? There is none. We are all volunteers and we are all welcome to contribute to the extent that we care to and to focus our efforts on those areas where we have sufficient interest to do so. Indeed, it has been argued many times that people with specialized knowledge such a Pcarbonn are a benefit to the project, not a detriment, since such specialized knowledge is difficult to some by.

It has also been argued that individuals with specialize knowledge should be given some amount of deference owing to their strong opinions on such specialized topics. For example, there is a well known editor who is known to specialize in Global Warming that has been given WIDE latitude with respect to policy. I see no reason that Pcarbonn should not be afforded the same.

In any event, I invite JzG or FP to point to the policy which states that being and SPA is a ban worthy offense. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me chime in. Being an SPA is similar to having WP:COI: both are not ban-worthy or illegal, but both invite trouble. Yes, it's possible for a COI to be extremely neutral and not promote his favorite interest, but being human it's very hard to do so. Similarly it is possible but hard for an SPA not to be over-focused on his subject of interest while ignoring or resisting legitimate criticism or otherwise missing the big picture. We do accept these type editors, and extend them good faith, but at the same time their actions are (and must be) scrutinized under a microscope, since it is so easy for them to stray. If they have already been admonished or punished by ArbCom, their likelihood of renewed misbehavior is higher and their leash should be cut even shorter. Crum375 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, where has this user's recent activity been examined under the microscope? I see no such analysis.  Does not WP:AGF demand that this at least be given a fair showing?  Until JzG puts actual recent diffs showing biased behavior, in context, what justification for extending an already served sentence is there?  --GoRight (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 3: Jed Rothwell
JzG states above:


 * "During the arbitration case it became clear that he had formed off-wiki ties with Jed Rothwell, another cold fusion advocate who is topic banned."

First of all, Pcarbonn's off-wiki collaborations have no bearing on-wiki. Only the user's on-wiki behavior is germane. JzG is most likely well aware of this so bringing up this association seems disingenuous and purely aimed at biasing the discussion.

Second of all, Jed Rothwell is currently indefinitely blocked by MastCell and he has not chosen to appeal the block. Given this he cannot be properly said to be banned. Blocks are not bans unless and until is has been demonstrated that no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock. We have no way to know whether this is actually the case at this point in time.

This portion of JzG's statement, therefore, amounts to absolutely nothing. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Goright, just look at what this fellow did during his topic ban: virtually no edits. Now look at the purpose for which he has used his account: not for improving Wikipedia, but to advance a personal goal.  He's bannable on those grounds. --TS 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "virtually no edits." - You would indefinitely topic ban someone for this? Hmmm.


 * "not for improving Wikipedia, but to advance a personal goal" - So say you. Please show me evidence that this was his intent.  Lacking any such evidence please WP:AGF.  --GoRight (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read his recent contributions. --TS 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please point to the ones where he states his intent to "not improve Wikipedia, but to advance a personal goal". --GoRight (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just about every editor sanctioned by ArbCom is there because they sincerely believe they are working to improve the encyclopaedia. Of course he's not going to say he's here to push a fringe POV, it's pretty obvious that Jed has persuaded him that this is some great wrong perpetuated on a wonderful field of science by the establishment, with Wikipedia in the role of establishment tool. The reason it went to arbitration is that he perceives his own POV as the only neutral one and is not prepared to accept any consensus that goes against that, to the point of driving others away. Nothing's changed. His userpage talks about facts suppressed from Wikipedia which it's his mission to get back in, these were already discussed and rejected in the interminable debates before the arbitration. Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs, Pcarbonn is, that's the problem and he's not only not fixed it, he outright rejects the premise. That's not fixable in any way other than a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 4: Abd
JzG states above:


 * "He also collaborated with, who it appears proxied for him and Jed Rothwell as noted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. He has also been active in promoting the fringe theory of cold fusion off-wiki, in collboartion with Rothwell. This led to Abd, in turn, being topic-banned from cold fusion."

(a) Pcarbonn collaborated with a fellow editor. This is bannable why?

(b) Abd proxied for Pcarbonn and Rothwell? Really? This is a serious charge so I assume it must be prominently covered in the findings of fact for the cited case. Looking... Looking...  Hmmm...  No such finding of fact seems to be covered. Per WP:AGF let's just call this allegation a creative accounting of the historical record.

(c) Off-wiki associations have no bearing on on-wiki sanctions. This is well established. Why is this even being discussed if not to poison the well?

(d) If you simply go to the case page pointed to by JzG and search for "Rothwell" you will note that he is not even mentioned, and yet JzG clearly asserts or at least implies that an association with Rothwell was a primary factor in Abd's topic ban. These points seem to be clearly in conflict, so per WP:AGF let's just call this allegation another creative accounting of the historical record.

Hmmm. JzG's account here is growing rather thin even after a cursory analysis. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is off topic, and I recommend you remove it, this thread is already too long.--Tznkai (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this is off topic (I assume that you mean this subsection on Abd, if not please clarify.) These are specific allegations from JzG's opening statement.  I am just seeking to address his points in detail.  --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ban discussions are not served by lengthy point by point analysis of one editor's opinion, and arguing supposedly topical minutiae is in fact, off topic, as it is minutiae. Additionally, your tone in this subsection is condescending and unhelpful.--Tznkai (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If my tone is condescending I apologize, that was never my intent. Where should a point by point analysis be conducted then?  Are you suggesting that bans are not worthy of such examination and should instead be superficial?  --GoRight (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You made your views clear in your first statement, and the section below that. Everything else has been repeating that essential point, and is thus unecessary. A le_Jrb talk  21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation of this subpage

 * Excuse me, but exactly who is TS to be editing other editor's comments at this forum? I object to this disruption on his part and ask that my comments here be restored.  --GoRight (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. This page is not your personal soapbox where you get to overwhelm the discussion with tl;dr comments.  Jehochman Brrr 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments specifically focused on the points raised, but not substantiated with any evidence, by JzG. How is it inappropriate to raise these issues?  Nor is it my intent for this to be my personal soapbox.  This is an open forum.  I have specific points I wish to raise that are clearly on topic since they refute the allegations brought by JzG.  I more than welcome others to debate the evidence point by point as should be done in a deliberative fashion.  --GoRight (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honest to goodness, if you two (Tony Sidaway and GoRight) edit war over this, I will block you both until doomsday.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully suggest that his repeated editing and removal of my comments at an open forum is uncivil and ask that he be instructed to stop editing my comments here or anywhere else on the entire project. I give him no permission to edit my comments as he frequently does and he has been asked multiple times to stop.  --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no intention of reverting GoRight's edit. --TS 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GoRight should drop this and move on. Tom Harrison Talk 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the dignified end to this would be for a neutral admin to close the discussion and declare a result. GoRight and Pcarbonn can appeal it to the Arbitration Committee if they disagree with the result. --TS 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this would be a waste of the community's time. Anyone is free to appeal a ban of any user, or so I have been told.  How is delaying the discussion at all beneficial?  --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I also question FP's neutrality on the declaration this ban since he explicitly participated in the discussion and therefore obviously has an opinion, duly expressed. This would seem to go against well established community practice that such closures and declarations be performed by uninvolved and neutral parties. Am I wrong on this being the well established community practice? Tony is merely trying to game the entire proceeding to lock in his preferred outcome. --GoRight (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is this "FP" to whom you refer?  How, in asking for this discussion to be closed by a neutral admin, might I possibly be said to be "trying to game the entire proceeding"?  --TS 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious...
This is not WP:RFAR part 2. We had an arbitration case. Pcarbonn has explicitly rejected the outcome of that case, continues to assert that he is right and we are wrong, and has resumed precisely the same style and focus of advocacy on his return from a topic ban during which he did precisely nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, instead focusing on off-wiki advocacy for precisely the same POV. In other words, the sanction has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to Pcarbonn's behaviour, and that is why it has been extended. Any other editor sanctioned for problem behaviour, who resumes the behaviour on expiry of the sanction, gets exactly the same treatment as far as I can tell. ArbCom generally only bans for a year at most because they subscribe to a doctrine of reform. Here we have no evidence of reform, in fact the opposite. If Pcarbonn wants the ban lifted he should start editing other subjects and start demonstrating an ability to accept consensus when it goes against him. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as we are stating the obvious, you are making nothing but bald assertions and providing no evidence to back them up. --GoRight (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence do I need to provide that Pcarbonnw as topic-banned for a year for POV-pushing on the cold fusion article, other than to cite the arbitration case? You are wikilawyering, engaging in circular argument and wasting people's time with frivolous and vexatious demands for more process when the outcome appears to be obvious to pretty much everyone who is not wilfully blind to it. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a laughable response. You are making charges of recent behavioral problems.  You have provided no evidence of those problems.  You are merely rehashing charges that have already been examined and addressed.  What have you got that is new?  --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more 2-cent's worth
I also just found out that Pcarbonn is being complained-about again. What I saw on the Administrator's Noticeboard page (which has a link to this page) does look to me somewhat like a witch hunt. So I think I'll talk about witches for a bit. The past few centuries Western culture has a fairly strong tradition of making ridiculous claims regarding witches, mostly bad, and then persecuting anyone to which such a label has been applied. But if you go back far enough to original definitions, you will find that in the Bible a witch was simply and only defined as a "poisoner". No pacts with infernal powers needed. No zooming around on a broom, either. Now fast-forward to Today, and some witches are associated with a particular religion (Wicca), fictional witches (e.g. Bewitched, Harry Potter can be as bad or as nice as any non-witch --and plenty of poisoners (pest exterminators, cancer drug companies, cosmeticians applying botox) are not associated with witchcraft at all!

Part of the problem in this particular case is the word "fringe". Do you remember that astrology was once mainstream science, and that the idea of vaccination was once fringe? I fully agree that the Cold Fusion research field has been considered to be "fringe" by mainstream science for 20 years. However, some recent experiments are beginning to be noticed by the mainstream, such as this one http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 --Physics Letters A is about as mainstream as you can get! And this experiment http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=THERMAL+BEHAVIOR+OF+POLARIZED+Pd%2FD+ELECTRODES+++lenr&meta=&aq=f&oq= in Thermochimica Acta, another mainstream publication, indicates that replication of the primary thing about this field, specifically the production of anomalous energy, is reaching a high level. As far as I can tell, most of the controversy stems directly from the proposed explanation that fusion is the source of that energy. But that hypothesis doesn't matter much, at all, compared to actually producing energy and reliably collecting real data about it. If this keeps up, then how much longer can the label "fringe" still be accurately applied to this field of research?

Over on the Cold Fusion talk page, Pcarbonn recently wrote: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, as the policy says. This means that significant view points, even in the minority, deserves fair representation, as ArbComm has stated many times. This page has a summary of the ArbComm ruling on fringe science, and in particular, the first one: "Neutral point of view as applied to science: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

The crux is thus revealed. If the CF research field is fringe, then by definition there can be no legitimate scientific disagreement. But if "disagreeing" papers start to get published in mainstream journals, then by simple observation there is at least some legitimate scientific disagreement, and the CF research field cannot qualify as 100% fringe. Pcarbonn's status as an expert in a fringe field ("witch") is very different from Pcarbonn's status as a legitimate scientific dissenter (not-a-witch). The Bosses here at Wikipedia are free to do traditional-type-persecution, or recognize the data of Today, and decide Pcarbonn's fate thereby. I just want them to be fully aware of what they are doing, when they do it. V (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have been on topic for the original arbitration case, but I think the point was made anyway. We already had the debate, the result was that Pcarbonn was topic banned for a year as a disruptive POV-pusher. During the year of hisa topic ban he has done nothing here, and on return he is immediately back at the same venue pushing the same POV, so the sanction has been extended. None of what you write above actually addresses that. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying I didn't find out soon enough, about this new effort against Pcarbonn? Even so, please note that the first of the two (nonWikipedia) links in my previous post above is about a mainstream publication that occurred during the original ban.  It could not have been possible to present it as evidence during the first discussion that led to a ban.  But it certainly qualifies now as a reason why Pcarbonn might want to have retained his POV!  (Hey, if 5000 years ago you had evidence that the Earth was spherical, would you hold that POV, or the POV that the Earth was flat?)  When a scientific argument finally ends, only one POV prevails.  During that argument, though, the NPOV policy of Wikipedia requires that all POVs be allowed their say, for balance.  Which is good, because sometimes opposing POVs are both right (does light consist of particles or waves? --it's both, simultaneously!).  I certainly saw Pcarbonn posting stuff on CF Talk page supporting his POV and some proposed edits.  I did not see that those posts were inherently "disruptive"; to me he was merely engaging in discussion.  At one point (see bottom of my talk page) he asked me to comment on one of his suggestions, and I did, not entirely favorably.  So I suppose I should ask, "Who defined 'disruptive', and just what is that definition?"  V (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that concerns of the type you raise were (properly) addressed and settled during the original arbitration case. The issue now is a very simple one: has Pcarbonn changed his behaviour in any way following his topic ban. The consensus is: no. You're arguing, in essence, that his behaviour is not a problem, but the arbitration committee found that it was then and the consensus is that, in as much as it has not changed, it still is a problem. The giveaway is that he rejects the outcome of the arbitration case. That's never good. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect he rejected the outcome of the arbitration case because he thinks he has evidence to support his POV over that of the opponents' POV. If the evidence is valid, then the "wrong" POV (the future losers of the scientific argument, like Church vs Galileo) is unfairly using strength-in-numbers to suppress the "right" POV.  How?  Simple.  Just claim he is being disruptive!  The more people who agree with the claim, the more likely he is to be barred from presenting his evidence (regardless of how valid or invalid it might be).  But as GoRight has indicated, mere claims that he is being disruptive is not actual evidence of disruption.  That's why I asked above about, in essence, The Official Definition That WikiPedia Uses To Find Someone Guilty Of Disruption, so that I (and anyone else) can examine Pcarbonn's posts to the CF Talk page, comparing it with the definition.  I see you failed to provide that definition.  Should I now therefore believe you support conviction on the basis of hear-say only? V (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bald assertions again. Demonstrate that his behavior is still disruptive with some actual evidence, please.  You are making a mountain's worth of allegations without providing so much as a mole hill's worth of evidence.  --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've already been pointed to Pcarbonn's recent edits which show continued abuse of Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, and no evidence of intent to improve Wikipedia's content--particularly over the long period when he was actually invited to pursue other modes of engagement away from cold fusion. The problem here appears to be that you refuse to accept that this kind of conduct is abuse of Wikipedia. --TS 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to illustrate the problem here: I think that this user's recent edits show clear evidence of abuse: .  It's all in there you just have to look for it.  --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do feel free to follow dispute resolution. --TS 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here appears to be that you refuse to accept that this kind of conduct is abuse of Wikipedia. (End of illustration.)  --GoRight (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I will listen to any criticism and abide by the consensus of any discussion aimed at resolving any conduct dispute in which I am an involved party. --TS 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rinse. Repeat.  --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am saying plainly that I am prepared to abide by consensus. No rinsing, no repetition. --TS 08:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it is time to move on. If this matter is raised again it won't be here.  --GoRight (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that the trolls, paid to baby sit the article, are at it again. I doubt that my objection to the railroading would have made any difference. They seem to have no POV except to stop any new info on CF from being presented in Wiki. If they can drive away all useful contributors, they have succeeded and can claim their bonuses. Useful researchers have no time to play their games.Aqm2241 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)