RationalWiki had a wide reputation as a joke wiki, where skeptics and atheists — and adolescents — fully engaged in unrestrained snark. There are many reviews, but start with the Wikipedia article. It will be fun to compare that article to the favorite targets of the RatWikians and their allies, the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia. Any socks there? Some much to research, so little time…. That one is for later. I immediately see POV-pushing in the editing….

This was reasonable, on the face, this was not, it involves synthesis, unless there is reliable source for the claim that criticism is because “beliefs” are challenged. That kind of claim is difficult even when reliable source can be found for it, it should be attributed … unless there was a formal study!

Lets start with a list of reviews. First, from Wikipedia:

At first glance, this source is misrepresented in the article. (note 13). What the article has is synthesis from the source. The source does not actually say that.

  •  Smith, Jonathan C. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp 77. 9781119029489
  • Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al., eds. Intelligent Systems’2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.

This is a conference paper, such are often not carefully reviewed. This is the sourced text:

In Intelligent Systems’2014, Alexander Shvets stated that RationalWiki is one of the few online resources that “provide some information about pseudoscientific theories” and notes that it attempts to “organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations”.

What RationalWiki does is to organize, not knowledge (Wikipedia does that), but snark, loosely based on very irregularly collected sources, often terminally weak.

This is a conference paper as well. The mention of RationalWiki is shallow, the authors do not appear to have done more than look at the stated purposes, and a hosted essay by Carl Sagan. The impression one would get from reading the article is not the impression I would see from the source.

  • Einspruch, Franklin (September 6, 2016). “Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists”The Federalist. Retrieved August 14, 2017

These are sources that mention a specific RationalWiki article to expose it or argue against it. No source so far is actually a review of the site, anything more than a passing mention. I’ll keep looking.

Dissertations are not generally considered reliable source, they would be primary sources. This dissertation simply mentions an idea taken from RationalWiki, and it describes the purpose of the site, with no analysis of whether or not the site actually accomplishes that purpose.

This went on with links showing that someone referenced RationalWiki in some way. Actual reviews? None (neither positive nor negative.)

Okay, I know to look at history. Did anyone attempt to add actual reviews? Wikipedia does not make it easy to search history. While that could easily be done from the database, no priority has been given it. Someone might take advantage of that and create a site with full-database search access. It would make certain kinds of wiki studies far easier!

I found a brief review that had been added and immediately removed, as it was a “blog” and thus “not reliable source.” This was only a superficial analysis of “site bias,” not actually controversial and not very informative.

There was an Articles for deletion discussion on RationalWiki. I find no assertion of source sufficient to establish notability. Passing mentions don’t count. It was kept, though there was much opinion to keep it as a redirect to the Conservapedia article. In the discussion I found these sources:

  • (page 2 is important. I couldn’t find this at first.)

Those are passing mention, really about Conservapedia. This was weak, but that’s Wikipedia. An admin takes a glance at a discussion, makes a snap decision, and unless someone cares enough to appeal it, there it goes, enshrined as a community decision (which it didn’t look like to me! Most wanted to see better sources. My own opinion as an inclusionist would do something very different…. )

Not considered reliable source, but an actual review! With details! This report describes RatWiki as it was when I was active there. Some of that atmosphere is still there. the report was by “Rational Wiki Exposed,” not exactly an encouraging author if one is looking for neutrality. But it was fairly sober.

Okay, I found a genuine revert war, starting with [ this edit], adding a review.  The user, an SPA, was warned for edit warring and disappeared. The source:

RationalWiki guts a reader’s attempt to correct its article on female genital mutilation

This is another source that is based on “RationalWiki is wrong on X.” This happens to be a topic I know a great deal about. Many sources misrepresent the position of Islam on the topic. What upsets people so much is not what is allowed or approved, and the majority opinion is that the extreme practices are prohibited. But this is not our topic here. The RatWiki article on this topic is far from the worst there.

I round a reference to the RW article where they brag report about mentions.

That quotes from many mentions. Indeed, it quotes from the book mentioned above:

Smith, Jonathan. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2017. 9781119029489. Lists RationalWiki as a logical fallacy library.

This is hilarious. I’m not really sure what the author intended. The instructions are to “select an example of a logical fallacy.” So RatWiki is a place to find the expression of logical fallacies. The training that I can imagine is to teach students how to spot logical fallacies. If a site is merely a list of logical fallacies with examples given, there would be little or no challenge. Rather, each of those sites, it is highly likely, expresses logical fallacies. The site is not about logical fallacies, as such, it is political. If one’s political beliefs align with the beliefs of a source, one is far less likely to spot the fallacies.

Sound training will practice identifying logical fallacies in our own thinking or argument, or in the arguments and thinking of those we might agree with. I generally agree with the substance of what is on the Nizkor site. But there is at least one blatant logical fallacy on the home page. Can you spot one?

5.4 Group Exercise: Identify the FallacyIn this exercise, divide into two teams. Each team selects an example of a logical fallacy (from this chapter) from one of these websites:

Team 1 presents its example to Team 2. Team 2 has five minutes to identify it and explain it. If the explanation is acceptable to the moderator, Team 2 gets a point. Repeat for Team 2. Complete until each team has a chance to identify five logical fallacies. The team correctly identifying the most fallacies wins.

I have created a link for each site. How the exercise would be done is unclear. There is a form of logical fallacy, “straw man,” where one presents an argument that is allegedly the argument of another, but it is not actually what the other says, thinks, or believes. So if students pick a description of someone else’s argument, they would be explaining a fantasy. Much more interesting, I’d think, to identify logical fallacies presented as factual or logical, and RatWiki is full of those, it is practically the norm in some articles.  For extra credit, identify logical errors in the thinking of people you agree with, and for a doctorate, identify them in your own thinking, because everyone does this (at least until it is distinguished). A loglcal fallacy does not mean that the conclusion is wrong, set that right/wrong mess aside. It merely means that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Something may be missing.

from other sources:

This refers to the RW article, Michael Prescott

(If Mr. Prescott sees this and requests that the link be removed, I’ll do it. Links raise Google ranking. Unfortunately, to study RationalWiki and create something verifiable, I need to place links, but I can find less convenient ways to do it, on request. I have not yet studied the Prescott article, but I’ve certainly seen worse on RatWiki!)

The public comments are interesting…. I decided to look at who created this article.

This then led me to more socks…. another day, another set of socks documented. There are certain red flags, easy to see, sometimes. Some identifications are not so easy, and there are probably some errors. The Smiths have no monopoly on snarky defamation.

to be continued ….

To live outside the law you must be honest

–Bob Dylan, Absolutely Sweet Marie (19 freaking 66)

This is a call for action.

Wikipedia Policy: Ignore all rules.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Years ago, I wrote an essay, Wikipedia Rule Zero. When all my Wikipedia user pages were put up for deletion by JzG, in 2011, the essay was rescued. So I can also rescue it now. Thanks, Toth. (Those pages were harmless, — there were lies  — ah, careless errors? — in the deletion arguments. Why the rush? Notice how many wanted the pages not to be deleted, or at least considered individually.) Well, that’s a long story, and it just got repeated on Wikiversity without so much fuss as a deletion discussion or even a deletion tag that would notify the user. Deleted using a bot with an edit summary for most of them that was so false I might as well call it a lie.

The talk page of that essay lays out a concept for Wikipedia reform, off-wiki “committee” organization. This has generally been considered Canvassing, and users have been sanctioned for participating in a mailing list, a strong example being the Eastern European Mailing List, an ArbComm case where the Arbitration Committee — which deliberates privately on a mailing list! — threw the book at users and an administrator who had done very little, but the very concept scared them, because they knew how vulnerable Wikipedia is to off-wiki organization. However, it is impossible to prevent, and a more recent example could be Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. 

It is quite obvious that GSOW is communicating in an organized way, privately. The Facebook page claims high activity, but the page shows little. And that’s obviously because it is all private.

I have spent a few months documenting the activities of Anglo Pyramidologist, the name  on Wikipedia for a sock master, with more than 190 tagged sock puppets on Wikipedia, and many more elsewhere. AP has claimed to be paid for his work, by a “major skeptic organization.” There are claims that this is GSOW.

Lying or not, the recent AP activities have clearly demonstrated that WMF wikis and others are vulnerable to manipulation through sock puppets and what they can do, particularly if they seem to be supporting some position that can be seen as “majority” or “mainstream.” They routinely lie, but design the lies to appeal to common ideas and knee-jerk opinion.

Recently, cold fusion was banned as a topic on Wikiversity, (unilaterally by the same sysop as deleted all those pages of mine), entirely contrary to prior policy and practice. It was claimed that the resource had been disruptive, but there had been no disruption, until a request for deletion was filed the other day by socks — and two users from Wikipedia canvassed by socks — showed up attacking the resource and me. So this became very, very clearly related to cold fusion.

However, the problem is general. I claimed years ago that Wikipedia was being damaged by factional editing without any claim of off-wiki organization — at least I had no evidence for that. It happens through watchlists and shared long-term and predictable interests.

Wikipedia policy suggests that decisions be made, when there is dispute, by users who were not involved. Yet I have never seen any examination of “voters” based on involvement, so the policy was dead in the water, has never actually been followed. It just sounds like a good idea! (and many Wikipedia policies are like that. There is no reliable enforcement. It’s too much work! When I did this kind of analysis, it was hated!)

So … a general solution: organize off-wiki to support generation of genuine consensus on-wiki. I will create a mailing list, but to be maximally effective this must not be, in itself, factional. However, having a “point of view” does not make one factional. People can easily have points of view, even strong ones, while still recognizing fairness and balance through full self-expression. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is neutral through exclusion, but if points of view are excluded in the deliberative process, as they often have been whenever those were minority points of view — in the “local mob” — consensus becomes impossible. Wikiversity was, in the educational resources, neutral by inclusion. And the AP socks and supporters just demolished that.

These off-wiki structure must also be security-conscious, because all prior similar efforts have not taken precautions and were crushed as a result. In the talk page for that Rule 0 essay, I described Esperanza, a clear example.

This will go nowhere if there is no support. But even one person participating in this could make a difference. A dozen could seriously interrupt the activities of the factions. Two dozen could probably transform not only Wikpedia, but the world.

Wikipedia was designed with a dependence on consensus, but never clearly developed structures that would generate true consensus. Given how many efforts there have been on-wiki, my conclusion is that it isn’t going to happen spontaneously and through on-wiki process, because of the Iron Law of Oligarchy and its consequences. Reform will come from independent, self-organized structures. I will not here describe the exact details, but … it can be done.

I used to say “Lift a finger, change the world. But few will lift a finger.” Sometimes none.

Is that still true? Contact me if you are willing to lift a finger, to move toward a world where the people know how to create genuine consensus, and do what it takes for that. Comments left here can request privacy. Email addresses will be known to me and will be kept private for any post with any shred of good-faith effort to communicate.

Another slogan was “If we are going to transform the world, it must be easy.”

There will be participants in this who are public, real-name. I will be one. More than that will depend on the response that this sees. Thanks for reading this and, at least, considering it!




If you see this page on an internet archive, it may have been updated and errors corrected (or even retracted!). Always check the current version of archived pages!

(See below for open public confirmation by Oliver Smith of the basic information here. I have correspondence with Oliver Smith which I am publishing on a subpage under a claim of fair use. He used a previously-published gmail address.)

A post by mikemikev on Lolcow wiki,  provided a screenshot, allegedly from another user, giving what appears to be some kind of directory listing.

Transcribing it:

  • DARRYL L SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 27
  • [name of apparent mother omitted],[street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 59
  • [name of apparent father omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 59
  • [name of apparent older brother omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 32
  • OLIVER D SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 27

An account claiming to be mikemikev also recently wrote an article on Oliver D. Smith on Rightpedia, with the same information. Reading it generally, mikemikev is not lying. I probably would want to have little to do with him, due to his apparent politics, but Oliver D. Smith is a liar and intensely harasses his targets. He has certainly attempted that with me, for the crime of pointing out what he did on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and the meta wiki. That full story has not yet been told. However:

Famously, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

It fits perfectly.

And, in fact, Oliver D. Smith has now acknowledged being some of the AP socks, both in correspondence with me, and in a blog he started to attack Emil Kirkegaard. I thought of archiving it, but … it was already archived twice. Here is the latest.

In that blog post, he acknowledges the following:

. . . I was a RationalWiki sysop (Krom) who wrote their racialism article (see here) which refutes the traditional race concept, that Fuerst supports. . . .

Many people hold what I consider obsolete ideas about race. It is not my task to defend “racialists,” much less “racists,” and there is a distinction that can be made, even though racialism sometimes is used to justify racism. For years I wrote that “race” is a myth, (while population genetics is not, and this is a complex topic often difficult to discuss, like some other topics that come up.) I have no idea where these alleged racists or racialists stand, because it really isn’t my business. I’m concerned about impersonation and defamation, and in the latter case, AP socks made it very personal and have cause damage, particularly to Wikiversity, all in the name of revenge. RationalWiki has been used as a tool for retaliation, by the Smith brothers (with some possible collusion from others, that I consider “under investigation.”) Krom actually admitted his use of RationalWiki in his farewell edit there. His real politics are very different from the general politics of RationalWiki, but he, and his brother, found they could gain mileage there.

Near the start of 2016, I created Emil O. W. Kirkegaard‘s and John Fuerst‘s RationalWiki articles. . . .

That had become obvious in my research (which both Oliver and Darryl have ridiculed as a “paranoid conspiracy theory”) But what account did he use? Krom? No. BenSteigmans, thus impersonating a favorite target. Favorite target of which brother? I don’t know. Oliver has denied being the one who impersonated Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia, blaming that activity on his brother (or, alternatively, claiming that this was some other troll, he was quite unclear), but here, in 2016, he was himself impersonating Steigmann. Oliver attacked Steigmann in his emails to me; my sense is that this was all coming from a major political grudge, not mere disagreement.

Kirkegaard and Fuerst were quickly permabanned from RationalWiki for disruption; Fuerst within a single month, while Kirkegaard in 3 months. In contrast, I’ve used RationalWiki for 6 years and have never been banned.

Like most what AP socks have claimed, this is quite misleading. RationalWiki does not ordinarily ban users, that takes a special discussion, called a “cooping.” There was no cooping for either Kirkegaard nor Feurst. So there is no “permaban.” What there is, is an “indef block”. I saw Kirkegaard attempting to defend himself on RationalWiki and I saw impersonation socks appearing. I’ve also seen AP socks create massive disruption that resulted in blocks of impersonated targets, and that has recently happened on Wikipedia, which I will be documenting and may file a checkuser request over.

Has Oliver ever been blocked? Well, it is difficult to tell, because there are so many accounts and each one may be one or the other brother, but right off the top, he has been blocked as an IP editor,

Oliver has claimed that I’m “permabanned” on RationalWiki, but … I was merely indefinitely blocked by one of the AP socks. He talks about that account:

The user Skeptical, a sysop, I know in person; is easy to verify isn’t me by email and he denied being me after a mistaken claim of identity by what could be a Kirkegaard sock (see here).

This claim of knowing one of the socks “in person” has been common for AP, with accounts that were considered by checkuser to be the same person. A massive tissue of lies and confusion has been created, so when does it stop? How can one “easily verify” that Skeptical is not an AP sock? Skeptical does not have RW email enabled. As well, it might be his brother.  Further, at the beginning of this, I thought it possible that there was a group of users who sometimes cooperated, “meat puppets.” However, what has been surprising is that, while others have supported AP socks, checkuser has detected most of them, when requested.

After Kirkegaard was exposed in news sources as a paedophile and neo-Nazi, for example The Guardian describes Kirkegaard a “weird far right paedophilia apologist” (see here), Evolve Politics and RT describe him as a “paedophile” and “Nazi” 

What the “news sources” demonstrate is a totally sloppy reliance on the RationalWiki articles for “fact.” Kirkegaard has an apparent cause of action for several pieces in the Guardian. I have examined the claimed evidence for “paedophile,” and it is completely bogus. While “paedophile apologist” has slightly more support, it is also bogus. (Basically, that is an extremely hot topic, and there are simple truths, which if stated, can cause some to cry “pedophile apologist.” And I mean “truths.” Like the definition of “pedophile” or (British) “paedophile.”

I wrote what is below before this, and I had taken this page down. However, I am updating it with new information. Prior conclusions are largely confirmed. Oliver Smith has objected to some claims and I will note those, but his objections are largely based on “I am not my brother, and he’s created most of the socks.” The rest of us can be forgiven, I think, for lumping these trolls together as one, originally because of checkuser findings that would often confuse such. Both were disruptive, which is one reason why, after an initial attempt to protect one from blocks of the other, the Wikipedians gave up. In my view, unless a brother is fully honest — including what he knows about the other brother — he is responsible. What has been revealed is quite close cooperation.

Of course, the Smiths are not on trial. Not yet, anyway. Rather, I’m a journalist, and responsible to my readers for both accuracy and caution. First of all, is the information — which is not much better at this point than an anonymous tip — plausible? Does it fit what else we know?

The evidence shown below, in addition to much on the page supra, connects Oliver D. Smith, particularly, to the family of sockpuppets called “Anglo Pyramidologist.”

(And then the early socks, before anyone would have been motivated to impersonate them, acknowledged being brothers. I have no clue that Adam Smith has been involved in anything disruptive, nor the other family members. Just Oliver and Darryl.)

So then is the address given a present or former residence? Are Darryl and Oliver Smith brothers, possibly twin brothers? [Smith has acknowledged that Darryl is his twin brother.] For the purposes of my study, I am not attempting to strongly distinguish between the brothers. Oliver Smith is far more visible as an open identity, but it is entirely possible that the more viciously disruptive Smith is Darryl. That is mostly speculation at this point.

Oliver D. Smith has this Facebook page. (archive copy). It gives his birthdate as  22 April 1990. That would make him 27 years old in 2017. Of course, someone may have found that information and faked the directory entry. Smith has enemies, many of them (as he continues creating them). Sooner or later, such behavior will generate real-world blowback. But why would an enemy create a false lead? The known enemies would want to expose him, not create some fake target.

From Facebook: Education:  University Of Roehampton, London Class of 2013. B.A. (Hons) Classical Civilization

The real Oliver D. Smith, if he is not Anglo Pyramidologist, must be aware of the claims. He’s not some shrinking violet who would merely hide. When a person is far better known as a internet troll than as the basic identity, and does nothing visible about it, something is off.

His Twitter account. Oliveratlantis is recent, Joined November 2017, Born in 1990, “Classicist and gamer.”

His blog points to a paper he wrote, published August 8, 2016, in a journal, Shim, a real peer-reviewed journal, though the paper (and perhaps the whole issue) was slightly askew from the general focus of the journal. It was a special issue on Atlantis. A comment from Smith on another blog. I may review this, because it shows that Smith understands the problem of considering “what most think,” when most are not experts.

I see one problem with the paper that connects with the internet style of Anglo Pyramidologist: his thesis is that Plato was a liar, when there are other possible interpretations that would still allow the story to be mythical. The paper is thus flawed by a lack of academic reserve. The paper, however, shows writing skill, aside from that problem.

This Wikipedia single-purpose-account, In an archive, is probably Smith. The account points to the special issue on the talk page for the Wikipedia Atlantis article. If I wanted to add a reference to a paper of mine on Wikipedia, I’d suggest it to a friend, who could do so, as long as the mention iteself was not disruptive. But that friend would not then edit the article, with the common Smith style of very many edits, each with a very small change (very visible on the Wikia articles he wrote, and the RationalWiki articles as well), because the friend would not be the expert on Atlantis, with high interest, I would. These edits emphasize Smith’s thesis and remove sourced material that might suggest the contrary.  Other suspected Smith socks that edited that article, after Anglo Pyramidologist was blocked 30 May 2011:

  • just before block
  • I looked through early 2013. That early socking was mild and not “disruptive socking,” my impression.
  • 19 February 2015
  • IP is a bit of a stretch, but AP has used Talk Talk.
  • In_the_springtime Probable. Nobody noticed (nor should they have). Last edit: 14 May 2015
  • SolontheAthenian blocked as sock of Quack Hunter, i.e., Anglo Pyramidologist, see the SPI filing Something is missing , an archive for Bender235, mentioned in the SPI case. In the springtime was fresh at that point. However, AP uses different service providers (in addition to open proxies) so it might have been missed. Was this an impersonation sock? Or a disruptive brother? If so, by not openly addressing the problem, Smith leaves little for us but to assume it was not. Meanwhile AP socks — and fellow travellers — accuse others of a paranoid conspiracy theory for what has overwhelming evidence, and is the opposite of a conspiracy theory!
  • JesusWater 10 June 2015, blocked as AP sock.
  • 13 July 2015 (vandalism from possible related IP, not like AP but his brother might do it)
  • Isambard_Kingdom. Nothing leapt out immediately from contributions, but then the retirement notice! I looked a little more and began to see possible AP interests. Before I decide this is to be set aside as unlikely, I’ll want to look further. Something spooked the user. “Isambard Kingdom” is not a named person.  (If one does not wish to call attention to an account, it’s simple: stop editing. Sometimes retirement templates are placed to avoid investigations for policy violations — it has often worked. Then the user takes up the account later (it is trivial to “unretire,” or waits out the checkuser data retention period and starts a new account that cannot be connected with the old by checkuser. This listing is not a claim of editorial misbehavior.
  • Again a stretch but AP has used BT. The edit could be AP or the brother.
  • only adding and removing space.
  • CritiasAtlantis  blocked and confirmed as AP.
  • JonathanJoshy blocked and confirmed as AP.
  • Whitjr this user is noted for an interest in the occult only, for future examination. It should not be necessary to say this … but … not all users with some interest in Atlantis and another AP topic will be AP!

Oliver D. Smith is also administrator of the Atlantis Wikia

According to his bio on Atlantipedia, dated June, 2013, he “studied classics at Roehampton University and is currently studying archaeology at the Oxford Learning College.”

Verifying that address listing

On, I found listings for Oliver David Smith and Darryl Luke Smith both  age range 26-30). I found a listing for [redacted, the apparent mother}. I didn’t want to spend what it would take to see the listings.

On, I searched the electoral register (up to 2014) and found that Oliver David Smith, from Radlett. voted in 2008 (when he would have turned 18, minimum voting age) to 2014. For Darryl Luke Smith, the voting was in 2009-2014. Either they are twins and Darryl didn’t vote that first year, or Darryl is not a twin, but a year younger. The other brother, [name redacted], first voted in 2003. So [the other brother],if he voted at first opportunity, would be five years older than Oliver, confirming the image data. (which is shutting down, so an archive link) shows Darryl L Smith, Radlett, WD7 (the rest of the postal code isn’t shown, but one could presumably buy the data — and perhaps full address data — on as voting 2009-2014.

At this point the preponderance of the evidence is that mikemikev was passing on a true image of some directory page. This is mostly useful at this point for supporting the IP information that shows geolocation data consistent with that residence.


Alleged harassing emails

If you are reading this on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL for updates, corrections, retractions, etc.

Joshua P. Schroeder claimed, on Wikiversity, that I had harassed him by email.

  • Delete and ban User:Abd for harassing me in e-mails. Wikiversity should be ashamed of itself for continuing to let him abusively campaign here. I have asked the foundation for a ruling as well. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that his complaint was one that the bureaucrat who blocked me was referring to. He was lying two ways: first, I did not harass him with emails (this page documents them). Second, I was not “campaigning” on Wikiversity, and, for two years, I had been mostly inactive, becoming active only because I saw genuine harassment, involving impersonation, leading me to identify massive disruption, cross-wiki and on other web sites, and I documented the WMF portion of it on the meta wiki. Many socks were blocked and locked, but the user vowed revenge.

I first wrote, through the Wikipedia interface:

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Wikipedia <> wrote:

I see that, who is a very crazy person, probably Daryl [Darryl] Smith, has kindly pointed out your new user page, and has elsewhere called you a “very old friend.”

(I have asked for that edit to be rev-del’d for obvious reasons.) I am not obsessed with you and hadn’t thought about you for quite some time. However, there may be some issues between us. If you ever want to talk, you will now have my email address. My talk page on Wikiversity and on meta can also be used.

Meanwhile, if you have friends like Smith, you are in trouble. You might take a look at the global contributions of this IP and also the .10, which was just globally blocked and .9 will probably be blocked soon, it’s so obviously socking, block evasion. The guy has at least 200 socks on wikipedia and was just stirring up shit, calling a lot of attention to himself. And now to you. I have no plan to publish your new user name unless some reason appears. If you have any requests to make, you may make them.

Good luck with your work. Astronomy is fun. Real science is fun.

This was, by the way, taking some risk, because my email has never been blocked on Wikipedia. So his later claim of harassment could be very serious, if taken seriously. He replied:
From: X X <[redacted]>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 13:07:40 -0500

Why did you post the post to Would you be willing to delete it?

 To be clear, that post is exactly why I changed my username.
We then corresponded directly.
Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]> wrote:

That post was in an obscure forum. It was then posted, about a month later, on my blog. (the blog post has a date, but that is the date it was created. It was private at first, only made public later, as I was under extensive attack by your “friend.” Your “friend” also pointed me, very handily, to your new account. This[Thus] if my motive were actually to expose and attack, as he is claiming, he made it easier.

But that is not my motive, and I hope for your career success.

Why I posted it is irrelevant now, but we can discuss that later. Yes, I am willing to delete it, but that may be useless, since your “old friend,” he called himself, archived both it and the later copy on my own blog. I already deleted the personal information there, but he’s linking to archive copies. (I have IP and timestamp evidence that he is the one who archived it.)

This is an extremely disruptive troll. I will attempt to delete the thunderbird post. I don’t know if I can do it, but I will certainly support a deletion request by you if it helps. Let me try first.

We can then discuss any issues we have, which might go into the reasons I posted that.

But first things first.

I did, in fact, take the post on my blog private, as a courtesy. I did that immediately. I also requested that the thunderbolts post be taken down.

From: X X <[redacted]> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 13:07:40 -0500

Look, I don’t care one way or another about any of this and I have no idea who the IP is who is posting to my page. I just want you to stop writing long screeds about me around the internet, okay?

Someday maybe you can take a step back and consider what evidence there is that I have been personally attacking you. I can point to a lot of times where you have personally attacked me on fora where I am not active.
The same user behind the IP also canvassed him to come to Wikiversity and vote in an RfD that was hardly even disguised as an attack on me. To not care who is leading him around by the nose is foolish.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> wrote:

This is not encouraging, Joshua. I took down what I could and did what I could and you show zero appreciation. I have not been writing “long screeds” about you on the internet. I have written much more about Joshua Cude, which I do suspect is you from a number of evidences. That was old. Mostly he’s smart and relatively knowledgeable, like you. I said we have issues, and I’d hope we can talk about them and possibly come to some agreement, but if you prefer to maintain hostility, I don’t predict a good outcome.

I have not claimed you were personally attacking me, unless you did so as Joshua Cude. (I [And] that’s not how I think about him.) However, there are other issues. What you do has effects. At this point I’m not making any claims or asking you to change anything, except maybe that battleground attitude. I’d prefer to see you let go of the past and move into a future that will be far more satisfying.

Your comment on that Noticeboard in response to the IP, who was clearly attacking me, in a completely inappropriate place, it had nothing to do with the business of that Noticeboard, was discouraging. (He was doing [this] on Wikiversity and on meta as well, and that’s why he was globally blocked. He was also lying, about many things.)

JPS was essentially supporting the anonymity of an user who was blatantly attacking, in a place where it was irrelevant.

That person is vicious, and vicious people will make “true accusations” but mixed with poison. He is the one who has made it difficult to get that material on you taken down, not me. If you don’t know who he is, maybe it’s time you learn. You have worked with him, I’m pretty sure. But I have not researched that specific issue.

I have specific technical evidence on that claim about who ordered the and copies being made. “Worked with him” might only mean as a Wikipedia editor, before the AP accounts were identified and blocked. But it might mean more than that. However, if JPS had not worked with him before, he proceeded to do so, clearly and aggressively.

I have not done anything, as far as I know, to real-life harass you. Documenting your accounts is what I did, which would not be harmful unless (1) those accounts did things which will harm your career or (2) others will real-life harass you. But they could also do what I did. It wasn’t that difficult!

The socks of Anglo Pyramidologist/Dan Skeptic/Goblin Face and many other names have attacked people — and continue it — who might be interested in harassing you, if you appear to be allied with them. That comment in the Noticeboard made me think you might actually be allied.

In other words, you may be creating causes for your own harassment. (By others, not by me.) Doing that while attempting to hide is crazy. Attempting to hide actually motivates search and discovery.

I’m not really that interested in you, you are not anywhere near as much of a threat and harm as Anglo Pyramidologist.

You could, you know, have asked me months ago to delete that material. If you had done that, it would have been gone before they found it and archived it.

One more comment. You wrote: ” I can point to a lot of times where you have personally attacked me on fora where I am not active.”

“personally attacked” is often not an objective statement. It is more of an emotional response. If I wrote anything about you that was untrue, do point to it and maybe I can correct it. I could even correct old material on Wikipedia, indirectly. Don’t assume I would not be cooperative, and you might actually see cooperation!

Good luck. Again, if I can assist with the removal of that material from and the internet archive, let me know. (they are attacking me for removing the material from my blog!)

From: X X <[redacted]> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:50:42 -0500

I’m sorry, I’m not in the mood to thank you for taking something down you shouldn’t have done in the first place.

The fact that you think I’m “Joshua Cude” still is just more evidence of your continued paranoia. Stay in your lane.

That was suspicion, not belief. It is not paranoid to suspect what is reasonably obvious as a possibility, on evidence. So he was accusing me of being crazy. In spite of years of Wikipedia experience, he has no idea of how to calm disputes and find agreement. He does the opposite of what it would take.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]> wrote:

Joshua, you create the response you get. You must prefer insults and fighting to actual discussion and cooperation. That explains a lot.

“Joshua Cude” was reasonable surmise and I never attempted to prove it. Too much work for too little value.

I may or may not restore the material. I may or may not cooperate with you as I said I would, hoping that you would appreciate that much. I may or may not point to your new account, except that I now have, because of that discussion that you encouraged on your Talk page, which leads into some very dangerous territory, attacking not just me, but Wikiversity and, in fact, academic freedom.

Instead you prefer to maintain that I was “wrong” to write what is available in public logs and documents you created about you. Your friends, and you are treating them as friends, when I documented the ruthless attack they made on Ben Steigmann (Blastikus), impersonating him and then attacking his Wikiversity account, where he had done no harm, and, I can see, Wikiversity itself, which you are seeking to destroy, created an article on me on RationalWiki. Enjoy it. It’s probably how you think.

This was not created by “skeptics.” It was created by one of the Smith brothers. That’s all making it quite clear how they operate. That’s what I’ve been documenting, not your sorry history, that was over two months ago, and I actually don’t remember at this point why I wrote that. You are motivating me to look at your edit history. Proud of it? I’m proud of mine, and I’ve always been public, real name available. I’ve never hidden and I’m responsible for what I write.

You are collateral damage and I was hoping to ameliorate it. Forget that!

From: X X <[redacted> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:56:12 -0500

You are behaving unethically. It is really amazing.
Some days later I responded:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 12/07/2017 (11:45:21 AM MST)

confirmation bias. your approach to interpersonal communication can be predicted to fail. How often have you succeeded in creating cooperation by accusing someone of unethical behavior?

In none of this conversation have you shown that you were actually paying attention to what was said.

If you actually cared about removing that material, one would think you would cooperate first, then deal with “issues.” That’s exactly what I proposed.

However, you don’t, it’s obvious. Sanely, you would have immediately deleted that material from the obvious sock on your talk page, and would have located all other occurrences of WMF references to the documentation, and asked a steward or the stewards list (better) for rev-del or suppression of all of it (easy to find those, just follow the sock edits — and, of course, you can find all the recent socks on my study page on meta. That’s what it’s for. I would have done this except if you don’t care, why should I?

You could start at any time. Meanwhile, because that sock is active and has been encouraged to file a complaint with the WMF, I’ve taken precautions.

Can you point to any evidence that what I did was “unethical”? It is contrary to Wikipedia policy, but, Joshua, I’m banned. I have no contract with Wikipedia. (One of the stupid aspects of banning instead of working with a user to create cooperation, which is possible and I’ve proven it.)

I could sock there and point to the archive copies that I did not create — that sock did, and the evidence I have is conclusive — and keep it up. If I actually wanted to harass you, you’d be experiencing a lot more harassment. As it is, because of this incident and your response, I am studying your history more closely, something I’d never done. But that’s not being documented openly and won’t unless it appears to be useful, which I don’t know yet.

I do not start with an assumption of bad behavior and then look for proof. I don’t know what I will find. But I look.

The world is much broader than Wikipedia.

He did not respond. Again, a few days later, with developments as they arose, I wrote:

The problematic material I was willing to delete (and the rest, temporarily) was your present name and employment. I apologize for posting that information. It is not relevant to what you have done on wikipedia. I would advise you to live openly, but I have no intention of aiding those who might harass you.

My interest is in community process and often Wikipedia. Your wikipedia history and activity is quite relevant to my work and it is not private information. Your extensive attempts to cover it up are an attack on the ability of the community to police itself. You got away with a lot that would have resulted in blocks for anyone else, because of lack of documentation and short institutional memory.

As a courtesy, I am informing you of a study I have begun on the blog. This is on a “page,” not a “post,” i.e,. the blog part of the site. It may or may not be referenced from blogs, which more people read.

Comments on it are open and you may, if you wish, correct any errors there (or at least assert your position). You may also do so by email. I will consider removal of material, but make no promises on that.

Reviewing the history, you got in with a bad crowd. Hipocrite especially, a troll who told me on RationalWiki to “go fuck my kids.” (When that was tolerated by mods, I stopped doing anything much on RationalWiki.) Sometimes, Joshua, we suffer for the behavior of our friends, sometimes our “friends” are our worst enemies.

No response is required.

(I remain willing to cooperate with you in getting those archived pages deleted and the Thunderbolts forum post deleted. I asked again and this time actually posted a request, and the mod just responded to me, seeking clarification. “Corrections” would be useless. Cat out of bag.)

That was my last email to JPS. He did not complain about either of the last two. I would ordinarily not publish private email, but when “harassment” is claimed, privacy rights have been waived.

The moderator of Thunderbolts decided to delete the posts as a result of my communication with him. So at that point, the truly private information (even though found in public documents), his changed working name (legally changed? I don’t know) and current employment as an astronomer, was hidden except for the and copies his “friend” made in order to attack me. He showed no interest or inclination to confront the obvious disruptive troll.

So … I republished that information. The page I pointed to was retitled “Joshua P. Schroeder on Cold fusion,” and at this point it is mostly a list of 313 edits to the Wikipedia cold fusion article. Contrary to what is claimed, that page is not an “attack, ” unless describing with links what JPS has actually done on Wikipedia is an “attack.” It would not be the first time research and documentation has been considered an attack. But is it an attack? Perhaps he did good work?

He did some socking, those accounts are listed. I have not yet checked to see if they edited cold fusion.

The information, besides existing on and, might end up being actually useful to someone. I don’t know. I have not yet analyzed those editings, I merely spent the considerable time to copy them into the page, so I saw some idea of the extent. I could jump to conclusions, but it would not be thoroughly grounded. It might be contaminated by my understanding of Joshua Cude. Was he Joshua Cude? Elsewhere I state the reasons why I suspected it, but it doesn’t really matter.

It is not illegal to create and use an anonymous account. Whether it is ethical or not depends on how one uses the account.

With his comments on that Wikiversity Cold fusion request for deletion, he established himself as an active enemy of academic freedom, and someone willing to be highly deceptive in order to disparage another, with a serious charge, of harassing emails. He deserves no protection (even though I redacted his email address above. Perhaps he might want to communicate in the future, so I will protect that, at least … unless he actually started harassing me by email, which I doubt he would do.


In the original Anglo Pyramidologist study, there was this, one name is now bolded as is the disclaimer at the top:

The older Wikiversity SPA accounts possibly involved (listing here is not necessarily a claim of disruptive behavior):

MrRowser, his Wikiversity contributions, edited on 8 March and 14 March 2015.  His edits did not display extreme skepticism or incivility. There were a few hints that raised my eyebrows, but … the behavior was not disruptive. (Some others listed were actually disruptive.)

Then, after no apparent WMF editing with this account, for over two years, he showed up on the meta wiki, to address the Anglo Pyramidologist undeletion request.

Delete I just received an email from another user that I was included in Abd’s study so I will respond here. Abd has now ported this study to his personal website Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist. I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015. I am a skeptic who has published a handful of papers debunking psychics. I am not a fan of the parapsychology article on Wikiversity, it was written Abd’s friend Ben Steigmann a banned Wikipedia user and neo-Nazi. I am not a troll or a sock, vandal that Abd claims. I have never heard of AngloPyramidologist (what a stupid username!) so I would appreciate if Abd would please remove my username from your “study” which is now on your website and contains false information. This is defamation and I will email the Wikimedia project about this. You are not a steward here so I am not sure why you are hosting these personal investigations!? My username is now blacklisted on your personal website. Please remove. MrRowser (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The study was open here for a short time, accidentally. That link is broken now, because the open page was caused by a WordPress duplicate page. Remove the 2 from the end and it would work now. When I saw this comment I immediately took it private. The arguments given are, however, vintage Anglo Pyramidologist. MrRowser was mentioned as shown above. Steigmann did not write the Wikiversity Parapsychology resource, though he contributed to it and was the author of a few subpages. Called Steigmann my “friend” has been common for AP, and so is pointing to his Wikipedia block (he is not banned there), but has been indef blocked. There is a difference. Calling him a neo-Nazi may or may not be correct, but is likely related to old positions, he has moved on. There are indications that the long-term conflict between Steigmann and AP were related to problems on other web sites. AP is possibly a fascist but certainly has a high interest in political organizations that have been called fascist. He was not called a “troll or sock,” then. He is now. He has not pointed to any false information. (Stating that he was possibly involved wasn’t a claim of being a troll or sock. There is evidence of some level of off-wiki coordination — notice the claimed email — but I have not emphasized this yet. He was making a legal threat (“defamation.”) “You are not a steward here” was commonly repeated by AP. His username was not “blacklisted” anywhere.

That density of false or misleading information is an AP characteristic. I suspect that he forgot that in 20165 he was running a good hand account. But AP does not care if he is identified and blocked. After all, he has created hundreds of accounts. An SPA is a throwaway, the only benefit gained is autoconfirmation, and it is easy to get that for a new account.

I considered filing a checkuser request, but … at this point MrRowser is not causing particular harm and I want to be quite careful about filing any more such. There are hostile watchers. So there would need to be benefit. I already know, from the evidence here, that MrRowser is an AP account and I don’t need checkuser for that. If he wants to prove that he is not AP, he could do so. I doubt he will try, but commentary is open here. I’ll see it.


I noticed you deleted his study which is a good thing! He has incorrectly put me on his study. See my edit here. Abd has now ported his study to his personal website [8]. How do I go about getting this removed? I am not the person he claims I am. According to another IP who has complained Abd is also attacking Wikipedia users on his website [9]. Is this behaviour to be tolerated?! MrRowser (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Stirring up shit with stewards is another AP trait. AP has freely linked to my pages that are allegedly attacks, which is the direct opposite of how to handle them. AP has even archived pages allegedly containing privacy violations, so that I could not even hide them, and then linked to the archive. The page he points to is primarily a list of the edits of Joshua P. Schroeder. It consists of a list of his accounts and then a list of his edits to the Cold fusion article on Wikipedia. That’s an “attack”? However, JPS strongly dislikes exposure of his activities, and has been allied with AP socks in the past.

My blog pages do not violate any WMF policy. He was wasting Vittuzu’s time.  The full discussion in which I suggested that Vituzzu checkuser MrRowser, and MrRowser replied, digging the hole deeper:

Abd you included my username in your LTA study and you have been writing about me on your website.

He is not careful. He slips. At that point “MrRowser” had not been mentioned on this site. The other IPs recently commenting also made the same claim, that I was writing about them. But the study is only about AP socks, including recent socks locked and blocked for disruption. Is he one of them? There were a very few users mentioned in the study that were reasonably suspected as being involved in some way, withotu definitive identification, which could include meat puppetry — and MrRowser is effectively admitting meat puppetry here. He wanted the study deleted because, in fact, it is about him. He went on:

I have been emailed what you have been doing, you have now deleted the evidence on your website which is very dishonest because you are now running scared.

That damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t-argument has been used often by AP. “Evidence”? He complained about being “included” in a study that was accidentally published, and so I deleted it, and he claims that this means I am “running scared.” Identified AP socks have claimed that. At that point, by the way, I had not seen the extended evidence that he thoughtfully provided that, in fact, he’s AP (or one of the family).

You wrote to another IP on the undeletion request that your study only included “blocked” users, but that is a lie because it included many unblocked IPS!

Two things happened recently. AP stopped using logged-in accounts and started using open proxies. Those were blocked. Then he started using a mobile phone provider (O2). Stewards will be reluctant to block those, because they are constantly reassigned. I took a look at the range involved, and there are many edits probably not AP. However, geolocation is very close to that of known AP IP. Without looking at the post … he provided no link — I don’t know if the claim was true at the time. AP often distorts what has been written in a way that makes it untrue. It can be a small shift, a single word omitted, for example, and if someone looks at the evidence, they might fall for it!

You have included innocent people in your study such as myself and other IPs who are not socks.

An IP is not a person. An IP which continues the exact arguments of a blocked IP/user will often be tagged as a sock. Vituzzu could have confirmed or disconfirmed this, though AP is getting more sophisticated and knows how to defeat checkuser. The narrow focus and arguments, though, completely betray that MrRowser is AP.

I just told you it is defamation and within 20 minutes of my reply you deleted it from your website.

I did that immediately, giving him the benefit of the doubt. I did that from his first edit, and thanked him for calling attention to it. As have other AP socks, he is making an attempt to comply with a request, at least temporarily, into a claim of misbehavior, “dishonesty.” I explained the page and the removal in my response to him in the request for undeletion he linked to.

I was not agreeing that it was defamation. The comment can be seen above. It was not defamation at all.

You have been accusing innocent people of being Anglopyramidologist, a user you have a vendetta against for allegedly creating your Rationalwiki article.

AP makes up arguments that he thinks will fly with his audience. First of all, he is not “innocent,” but he wasn’t accused. By the way, AP socks, mentioning AP usually mispell it, perhaps so that Google searches will fail. Just one more small sign. Secondly, I did not have a vendetta against AP, but AP attacked a user, using impersonation socks to make him seem far more disruptive than any actuality (the reality was very minor, a small amount of socking, not disruptive in itself, except for being block evasion. AP has done a hundred times that, and disruptively, attacking.) So I investigated, realized what a huge sock family there was, and started to document it. AP went bananas, creating more and more socks. That made me think I was onto something! The RationalWiki article, which he is pleased to link to, did not exist at that point. AP vowed he would get even and he has now succeeded in obtaining a deletion decision on Wikiversity — which is trashing Wikiversity traditions — but I had already decided to not invest more work in Wikiversity itself, and the recent sequence shows that the decision was sane.

No, the vendetta is his, and that will be documented more thoroughly. He announced it plentifully, as a threat! However, I don’t intend to stop documenting what he is done and it will now be on this blog, cooperating with others who have done the same for some time. I can now reveal some of what was kept private because I was still working with WMF policies and traditions. I have much more freedom here.

As the IP pointed out in the un-deletion request, you originally wrote here [10], Friends and Enemies.

And what does that mean? It’s still up, that page. The link is to a diff where I was changing the section name from Friends and Enemies to a clearer expression of the intention, . “Other persons named by AP”

You appear to being using this website to attack users you have personal issues against, your “enemies”.

No, AP names others in many of his account names, and they mostly are his enemies. It’s a behavioral characteristic, that is obvious, if one looks at the list of account names. Apparently this argument fooled a Wikiversity administrator who referred to it.

I also do not understand your other LTA study [11], it lists socks of AngloPyramidologist which are found here [12] active from 2011-2015 on Wikipedia but then you added about 50 other accounts unrelated to AngloPyramidologist that were active on Wikiversity in 2017.

Actually active on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta. He understands. He’s lying.

Your study is not supported by solid check-user evidence and you appear to be making false connections.

Appear to whom? AP made a few mistakes that connected the older and newer accounts. This argument is a particular obsession of AP. “You have no technical evidence” he has said many times. First of all, the duck test evidence is even stronger than checkuser technical evidence. They are, however, supportive of each other. I have private evidence, and he had edited IP on RationalWiki there in a way that connected him with a newly blocked sock in the Michaelskater series. That was promptly revision deleted, but I was a sysop at the time and could read such edits. The IP had edited a Wikipedia article, carrying on the work of HealthyGirl, who had been blocked as an AP sock.

Most of the former meta LTA study is from checkuser evidence, though. What MrRowser is arguing is that there is no proof that there are not two separate families of socks. Who is the judge?

For my own life and what I write, I am. I am responsible.

You are not a steward so you should not be conducting these investigations. AngloPryamidologist was a sockpuppeteer but I do not see evidence he was any of those accounts in 2017.

So? There are many incorrect sock identifications on Wikipedia. (and AP created some of them!) Why is he obsessed with this one? It’s obvious. And “you are not a steward” is a common AP argument. True, but without consequences. Stewards don’t do investigations that lead to checkuser requests. The community does, those who decide to do it.

I just read over what the various IPS have written about all this.

I will be putting all that together to make it easy to review.

Admins have complained about your behaviour [13], you have also accused innocent IPs of being AngloPyramidologist which they have denied [14][15].

They are not innocent. The most recent O2 IPs geolocate to AP’s home location, which, of course, I could not reveal on meta. They were continuing the same arguments as the blocked open proxies he had been using just before that, and those open proxies connect with technical evidence to much AP activity. What they were doing was exactly what AP socks had promised they would do, in an apparent attempt to intimidate me.

You have sent another Wikipedia user harassing emails [16]

He claimed that, yes. Did I actually send harassing emails? I will show the emails to a qualified functionary with a need to know, but I sent one email to Joshua P. Schroeder through the WMF interface, to his current user name, which the IPs had pointed me to.

The way that works is that it is forwarded by the WMF to the addressee, who may ignore it or respond. The original mail was an offer to cooperate in getting certain material taken down from another web site and then saved on and by AP. And, yes I have proof of that. JPS responded, which he would not do for a harassing mail (he has claimed to be harassed for years, and it certainly wasn’t me!) We went back and forth and he never requested I stop mailing him, though he did not reply to my last mail, I think. This is not “harassing emails.” However, as a result of that false claim, which was libelous and may have influenced the thinking of others, I have returned all the material that I had hidden.

AP thinks it is perfectly okay to out and defame users on RationalWiki — and he did create that article on me, that is quite clear, but if someone documents what he does, he’s oh, so offended. He is a liar and a hypocrite and probably fucks sheep without their consent.

Ahem. I’m human and I can actually get angry. Reading MrRowser lying, over and over, I am reminded this is not about some attack on “skeptics,” or, from the other side, simply exposing pseudoscience and “woo.” Genuine skepticism — ancient and honorable — does not need to lie, ever. There is a far darker agenda involved here. It’s been exposed on many sites, and I’ll be collecting that muck as well. This is about violations of basic human decency.

 and you defame him on your website [17][18] on several articles

Where is the defamation there? 17 is a link to a page on JPS edits to Cold fusion. It is, at this point, almost entirely a list of edits without comment. If anything there is defamation, I appreciate knowing. (But I will probably begin to analyze the edits, so it could be come more, ah, controversial.

18 is a link to a list of his accounts and, now, what had been removed, his current real name and current position as an astronomer. Information like this is routinely posted on RationalWiki, without the consent of the targets, largely by AP (many articles have been documented in the RationalWiki page). That is certainly not defamation, or is it, Mr. Smith?

According to another admin you spoke to there have been numerous complaints about your behaviour. The same admin on that talk-page says the Wikimedia foundation have received “numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time.”

I’m easily accessible and I have received no indication of Foundation interest and I’m told by someone who should know that the Foundation is very unlikely to be interested. People have complained about me for years. Why? Well, I confronted administrative abuse on Wikipedia, successfully (one admin reprimanded that then one who came after me, possibly in retribution, desysopped), and people who do that had better be prepared to face complaints.

In my training — yes, I’m trained — we were told, “If you are not being shot at, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.” A bit of an unusual perspective, eh?

My own version, before the training, related to Wikipedia Rule Number One: (If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore the rule.) If you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. It follows from the Rule and from human nature.

As this IP wrote [19], you are using these “LTA” studies to “defame” innocent people. You then link to it on your personal website.

He does not name one innocent person defamed! Over 200 socks are listed, plus a few IP addresses globally locked and then a few checkuser-declined (for technical reasons). (And the LTA studies are completely independent from the material about JPS or others sometimes described on these pages, except that AP is now attempting to create allies by claiming a common “enemy.” That is another AP trait.

To defame a person I must name them or show their identity. Mobile phone IP addresses, which this user was so concerned to defend, are not identified people, as such, and cannot be defamed. However, we can share that information because it may be useful to an administrator somewhere, and there are also legal actions being contemplated by some. AP has allegedly real-life harassed people, with phone calls and threats, and his internet activities have caused damage to business interests. Sooner or later someone with resources that can be dedicated to that will say “enough!”

I have not been harmed, or I’d be talking to an attorney myself. But I will cooperate with anyone needing assistance. AP is defaming people under real names (such as me! but many others)

You also have an obsession with claiming different people are “AP” a target of yours, as another IP pointed out this is extreme paranoia.

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.

However, I present evidence, not just wild accusations. I was originally completely ignorant of AP, I knew a little about one sock, Goblin Face, but no idea that this was a sock of a large family of socks. Just seemed like a highly opinionated user, and ready to make accusations of others. It was Wikipedia business which hasn’t been my business, as such, for about six years. Except I am interested and involved with cold fusion, and the state of the article there is atrocious, so I have researched sources that others might use if they choose.

I can assure you none of us are that stupid user from years ago!!

This is absolutely amazing. He is describing himself as “one of us,” which must be one of a number of people named in the study, which describes, for the largest part, blocked and socked users, who have lied and been uncovered and blocked and locked. He could mean the recent IPs, which geolocate the same as AP. It’s like he believes readers won’t put that together. And he might be right. Wikis seem to generate clueless users, or burn them out and make them so.

I do not know what the official rule on off-site harassment is, but as you have been harassing different Wikipedia users on your website I will email the Wikimedia Foundation and see what they say about this. You obviously need to be blocked because you have no intention of stopping. MrRowser (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He will be wasting their time. I doubt he will actually email, because it would reveal more about his real identity, and the WMF will ignore anonymous complaints, I’m fairly sure. I cannot be stopped by the WMF, even if they wanted to, and they don’t. That is, my account could be locked, that they can do. But that would not stop me at all, it would merely give me higher motivation, which all of AP’s fuss has done.

He seems to have believed his own propaganda, that I was using Wikiversity to “push” pseudoscience. I actually stopped most work on Wikiversity years ago because I concluded it wasn’t safe, it was vulnerable to attack from Wikipedians, in this case led by a troll, obviously socking. And that reveals a great deal about Wikipedia and about wikis in general. I just found out out obtuse some administrators can be.

So the guy walks across the street to a police officer to report a mugging taking place, and the officer arrests him for jaywalking. However, when life gives me lemons, I don’t just make lemonade, I make lemon chiffon pie or lemon chicken. Yippee!

I warned AP that I was the Tar Baby and that attacking me was a Bad Idea. His response was to complain about 73-year old cranks who should not be allowed access to the internet. Ah, no respect for elders! His choice, though.

MrRowser now does actually join the list. Previously, there was only a mild suspicion and his edits looked much like common skeptical edits, reasonably ordinary.

MrRowser is not merely suggesting that he was improperly “blacklisted” — the study was not a blacklist at all, and had no such effect — he was attacking the list and supporting and using the block on RationalWiki, which he linked to (such external links will normally be considered harassment), which block was by … an AP sock; one such sock claimed, on RW to be “running the place” and to have about 700 socks. Joke? Maybe. Like editors affiliated with what was called in reliable source a “cabal” had, almost always, a “Cabal Approved” template on their user pages.


And now another clue. An AP sock just posted notes on my Wikiversity talk page:

he also attacks Wikiversity and Wikipedia admins on his website.

I have made references to a Wikipedia administrator,JzG; and I have not reviewed them for consideration as “attacks.” However, Wikiversity administrators? Where? The only Wikiversity users I have discussed here have been AP socks (on the AP study page) and … this page, just created, on MrRowser. Or is he simply lying? In any case, I am putting together a study of recent events on Wikiversity, and connecting them with a long-term trend, where Wikiversity was slowly going down the tubes. I have never told the story in one place. It will name names, which would have been avoided, generally, before now. I’m going to add the IP information to the AP study and tell why I conclude the IPs are Anglo Pyramidologist.


Anglo Pyramidologist



This study of the massive socking called “Anglo Pyramidologist” was originally on the meta wiki, the first study having been moved from wikiversity to avoid disruption, as the file User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist, but was deleted there for mysterious reasons, given that it was the source, the evidence, for a list of socks that was allowed by the same steward. That page was ported here from an archive of the meta page and I am removing all the chatty discussion of why I started the study, etc., the page before such stripping can be read at

When hosted on meta,  I attempted to comply with WMF privacy policy, and some material was not disclosed there, that is disclosed here, where there is no such restriction. This user is the most disruptive and libelous I have ever seen, and does not deserve protection, and those who are protecting him (and there are some), are taking a side against decency, not to mention WMF neutrality policy.


  • MrRowser deserves a special honor being at this point the most recent identified AP sock to edit using his account. (Identified by the duck test.)  There are other new IP accounts listed.
 There are indications that AP is more than one person, two brothers are often mentioned on other sites (Oliver and Darryl Smith) and there may be a third brother or a sister (HealthyGirl?). Behavioral differences may be seen.
Complicating matters is that, as Anglo Pyramidologist is known to impersonate enemies in order to bring down  the thunder on them, it is possible that he has also been impersonated. He has not complained about this, as far as I know, and it has not been investigated using checkuser or similar tools, to my knowledge. I am finding, for sure, strong signs that almost all of the activity is coming from one location in England, where IP can be identified (the user often uses open proxies, but not always).
This will be covered in the IP section.
On Wikipedia, though, all the accounts are classified as Anglo Pyramidologist, they don’t really care if it is one or two people, if they behaviorally match one of the tagged accounts, and/or are confirmed by checkuser (which can fail to distinguish between people using the same internet access).


Inclusion of an account here is not a claim that identification is correct, only that it — or suspicion — can be documented in some way. If a claim is included that is not documented, correction is invited.
The recent activity has been through SPAs, which register and dive immediately into high conflict discussions, these are easily recognized. Most recently, open proxies and then mobile phone IP addresses have been used
You can delete this message if you like. Just to let you know I will not be further engaging you. It seems you live for this drama, I will not longer be involved. I will do my best behind the scenes via email to get admins to delete all your material.
He meant it, and he has done just that, but was lying when he said he would not be involved. He continued to create sock puppets — or to create disruption with open proxies and then mobile IP>
If you want to spend the rest of your life stalking someone that is up to you, but it is not healthy.
On his favorite web site, RationalWiki, that is called “concern trolling.” The sock master has obviously been stalking Ben Steigmann, then me, and many others.
I object to such a thing. I am done with this.
Excellent, but he just contradicted that with a threat of endless effort.

I would like to add though that AngloPyramidologist is innocent. If you want the debunker of parapsychology/or pseudoscience it is me.

This would be, I tentatively assume, Darryl Smith, whereas AP was Oliver Smith. I don’t really care. Both were disruptive and the checkuser evidence does not distinguish. There does appear to be crossover, i.e., some shared interests. If the original AP is inactive, good for him, but the other brother, then has also taken on some of his brother’s interests, because the original patterns still show up.

I have debated Ben in the past, he knows who I am, I have talked to him on Wikipedia in 2014. I have nothing against Ben personally, unfortunately he uses Wikipedia to promote his fringe beliefs, he promised in 2014 not to come back but his mistake was coming back in 2017.

Obsession with Ben Steigmann is an AP trait.

Take care. Btw I do object to the ‘troll’ allegations. I have written over 250 articles on Wikipedia. As to this very day 30/9/2017 I have four Wikipedia accounts and 12 others I occasionally use, the admins are only interested in banning vandals.

Most of the provocative posts this user made were trolling, poking, attempting to find some vulnerability that could be exploited. On Wikipedia, this user, perhaps hiding his true mission, would poke and provoke until a naive user explodes … and then he can get the person blocked for incivility. There is a trail of wreckage, if one were to look back.

If you are atheist, pro-skeptic like me and debunking fringe beliefs the admins love us.

If admins love this, they have lost the core of Wikipedia, NPOV, in favor of something they like personally. I could think of a couple who might, but most would recoil in horror, and the SPOV faction has lost every time the issue comes to serious community attention.

I can’t go wrong. I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

There are possible connections between AP, the faction mentioned, and a well-known “skeptic group,” but others are working on that aspect of this. I’m not, at this point. That is, I think this may be true, and I may know who that “owner” is. However, I also know that it is possible that some enemy of those people is pretending to be their friend, here.


I still create articles perhaps 12 or so a week. I have serious knowledge and I have improved the Wikipedia in skeptical related articles in relation to fringe beliefs.

I have found some recent activity, but I have not begun systematic study. Now, if this is true, why would he tell me? Indications are that this person is mid-twenties, and is obviously arrogant. He is likely unaware of all the ways that activity can be studied, that socks can be identified. He may imagine that certain defenses are impregnable. Truth, however, tends to out. If he stops attempting to disrupt Wikiversity, and to attack me, maybe I’ll never get to it. He’s been quiet for a day now. I’ve been warned that these people never give up, so we’ll see.

Your statement we are all vandals or doing illegal activity is false.

First of all, there may only be one of him. Secondly, impersonation with intention to defame is a crime almost everywhere.

This is common in his arguments, they misrepresent what has been said. It has not been claimed that the accounts or IPs are “all vandals or doing illegal activity.”

Take care and Good bye. My advise for you would be to give up. You are fighting a war you cannot win.

I’ve already won, thanks to reality. Survival is a game that we always lose, eventually, if that’s the game we play and the war we fight. However, at my age, every day that I’m still alive is a victory, and the mystery is how many more I have left to win.

You will never work out who I am or get rid of me from Wikipedia.

Leon. From a tower (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [this section has a link to the edit in the heading]

Relying on sources I consider reasonably reliable, I have some developed opinions as to personal identity, I’ve mentioned that. This would be AP/D, probably. It doesn’t matter. I’m unlikely to sue, because I have not been damaged. Some, however, might.

If Wikipedia is infested with him, that’s their problem, not mine. No critical interest of mine depends on Wikipedia at all. Nor, in fact, on Wikiversity or any WMF wiki. There are sincere people there, working for the goal of a user-created encyclopedia based on neutral presentation of what is in reliable sources, and that goal is damaged by those who work to selectively exclude some point of view or position, rather than channelling these into collaborative work. Wikiversity, not having limited space for specific topics, is not normally afflicted by factional wars, AP/D attempted to take such conflict there. He failed, because I recognized what had happened and addressed it.

(However, the last attack, by IP, including canvassing on Wikipedia, drawing in his faction, the one that he claims “loves him.” And something was indeed going on behind the scene, because admin response on Wikiversity (1) completely ignored the previous history and obvious personal attacks, and (2) served the AP agenda.  The effect of that is to demonstrate conclusively to me that Wikiversity is not safe, so, unless something drastically shifts, bye bye Wikiversity!

I will continue to document what has happened and is happening. I’m not dead yet.

 SPI investigation archive for Anglo Pyramidologist

roughly 190 socks on Wikipedia, plus IP
11 April 2011

15 June 2011

28 November 2011
13 December 2011
above confirmed mutual.
21 September 2011
27 September 2011
03 October 2011
03 October 2011, take 2
05 October 2011
IP check declined for privacy reasons. There was “other behavior” which the checkuser declined to disclose. I have a suspicion of off-wiki coordinated editing, and the checkuser may have detected actual sock accounts and left them alone. I may look more closely at this later. These are all Verizon wireless. So why doesn’t the account register, if they want to edit that much? Likely reason: they don’t want to be identified. Wikipedia went overboard in privacy protection. Privacy is important, but … sometimes there are higher values. I don’t know if that applies here, yet.
It appears that IPs were blocked. These IPs don’t look like AP, but … open proxies or something else.
02 November 2011
all confirmed. match to BookWorm44.
13 June 2012
claimed to be w:User:Earthisalive
Quack. Previously blocked as User:Earthisalive, now returning as User:The earth has a mind, First edit is to recreate European origin of modern humans as Out of Europe theory. Check user requested to check for sleepers. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up. Mentions a series of articles deleted, that lead to RationalWiki articles and more possible socks there. AP has been claiming that he has created many Wikipedia articles and RationalWiki articles. Yes, he has. Often very disruptive articles, the cloaca of RationalWiki. See the tip of the iceberg in the RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist study. 
29 September 2012

From a combination of the duck test (which I have not confirmed (but the account names!!!), I have not yet studied these account activities) and the checkuser confirmations, I suspect that AP may have been using some kind of open proxy then, though that also seems unlikely.

11 November 2012
24 December 2014
10 June 2015
all confirmed

17 January 2016

At this point investigations were moved to Anglo Pyramidologist

29 March 2016

all confirmed. Again, Anglo Pyramidologist asserted as master.

08 August 2016

all confirmed.

28 September 2016


Storyfellow’s name is probably a take-off on Philosophyfellow, a tumbleman sock. Storyfellow apparently created a Wikipedia  article on Emil Kirkegaard, a favorite AP target, see the RationalWiki study, and see the Wikipedia Articles for deletion discussion. Rebecca Bird showed up to support Storyfellow. See the discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe Theories Noticeboard, a favorite place for AP socks to solicit help. This sequence shows the techniques AP uses to make it appear that he is multiple editors. Rebecca Bird reverted some of Storyfellow’s edits. On Rational Wiki, AP socks with sysop privileges block other AP socks. Complicating this is the probability that AP is actually two persons, the “Smith brothers.” Emil Kirkegaard recently published an expose of the sock master behind AP. That would be the original AP, not the brother with different obsessions — but from what I’ve seen, they also support each other.

Meta checkuser/lock reports

Filed 20 September 2017

Filed 24 September 2017

Locked 26 Sept 2017

26 accounts. New ones not listed above

Locked 27 Sept 2017

Filed October 15, 2017

locked in this sequence (no explicit checkuser request or report, and not all socks will be seen, no active watch will be maintained, only accounts seen as actively disruptive by the duck test or inferred from logs)

I have a direct communication from the person who has been identified by many as the original “Anglo Pyramidologist” plausibly claiming that he was ZaFrumi but not “99.9%” of the socks mentioned. Even though that is obvious hyperbole, yet because ZaFrumi was not actually tagged as a sock, I have struck the name above. More will be revealed.

Filed 24 January, 2018

Bodybuilder1991 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser)

Also identified socks already tagged on Wikipedia as AP socks

Other locks

IP reports

Mobile IP

Additional suspected socks, not yet handled globally

Detailed study comparing users

Because a probable AP sock has claimed to have multiple active accounts, a study of the editing patterns of AP socks, as well as possible suspect users, is in order. On this subpage, links will facilitate study of contributions and data generated by user comparison tools. Being listed on this subpage is not an accusation of sock puppetry, because there are multiple possible causes of comparison positives. Correction of errors in data or analysis is invited. Please be careful about privacy policy, real-name identification is prohibited. Even if a user has admitted to real-name identification, it should be avoided. The subpage is /User data. —Abd (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This was a meta subpage and is still there.

connection between Anglo Pyramidologist and the Michael skater sock family

(I have seen evidence connecting AP to Michael skater, to be supplied with any filing that depends on it. These users are all blocked on Wikipedia (except as noted above, i.e., possible innocent bystanders). Michael skater socks have generally been globally locked.) I do not assume that all identifications above are correct. After all, the Michael skater socks were identified and tagged as Blastikus in the Bastikus case archive. It only matters if a tagging is then used as evidence against a user cross wiki, as happened with Blastikus (Ben Steigmann), as socks were designed to implicate him, see cheesecloths ben steigmann above. Could an enemy of AP have run these socks to get him whacked? If so, it failed. However, there are known agendas, and, with some care, it can be seen that the false flag socks, which exist, are designed to interrupt and damage the impersonated user while, sometimes, pretending to share the user’s point of view.
There are additional clues in the latest suspected socks that have not yet been checkuser connected, even though one admits to being Michael skater. Because the history is rife with possible impersonations and red herrings,I am not starting there.

Identifiable characteristics of Michael skater socks

Michael skater contributions

  • registered enwiki 22 June, 2017
  • filed SPI for Blastikus.[4]
  • claims to have been following Ben Steigmann on Wikiversity, claims Ben Steigmann (BS)is banned.
  • points to edits of Psychicbias and Myerslover (Steigmann) to w:Frederic W. H. Myers. Meyerslover (Steigmann) reverted by IP with same POV as skater, which also edits w:Bruce Lipton, fringe, epigenetics, “crank,” “quacks.” check geolocation.
  • BS allegedly pushing “psychic beliefs” on Wikiversity
  • reveals alleged BS IP
  • asked if he has another account, does not answer, but says he does not want to reveal his Wikiversity account for fear of being targeted by BS.[5]. This would necessarily be off-wiki drama, if there was anything like that. BS was non-disruptive on Wikiversity, and his WP socking was low-key and not characterized by personal attack or disruption (other than being block evasion, and that was not extensive).
  • pings Manul
  • Edits as IP (forgot password). check geolocation.

more analysis

The following material was rev-del’d for “personal information.” [6] based on a complaint from one of the socks, now globally locked. There was a link to a critical wiki that gave the name of the real-life person allegedly behind AP. I have removed that link. If any other material here violates policy, please suggest changes on Talk. Any registered (not SPA) user may also remove specific allegedly offensive material here. Disruptive editing will be reported. However, this was the complaint that led to the rev-del:[7]
Doxxing and harassment from abd
Abd is personally stalking mikemikev, anglo-pyramidologist, manul and other Wikipedia editors and writing false claims about them [8], he has no technical evidence linking any of those accounts to Ben Steigmann but presents his speculations as factual. He also links to a real life name that is alleged to be of a Wikipedia account, taken from internet troll Rome Viharo‘s website. Can you remove the doxing and stalking? I fail to see why this is being put onto Wikiversity. Abd is a 72 year old man who seems to spend his time online now stalking people. This sort of behaviour and the doxing is unhealthy and breaking multiple laws. Antifa activist (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Remarkable — and ironic: the user has given a link that will lead to much more independent information. that was not necessary. This is classic, and this is a long-term user, one might imagine that he would know to report alleged doxxing by email to an admin, not on a public page, because that will call attention to it. However, the real purpose was to irritate the administrator and lead to action to be seen — by me — as harassment. In fact, the admin properly offered to email me the rev-del’d content (completely proper) and I saw all this as evidence that some nerve had been touched.
The report to Dave lies: that page complained about, copied here, did not claim fact, but collected evidence and some preliminary opinion (some of which was incorrect). There is technical evidence for much of the linkage (i.e., checkuser reports) but the duck test can actually be stronger. This user attacked many other users as socks without “technical evidence” in his activity, specifically the sock activity reported in w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus/Archive#19 August 2017 which followed w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus/Archive#22 June 017 filing by the same user as behind the disruptive sock activity.
The page did not accuse w:User:Manul, mentioned in the study, of any wrong-doing, nor have I found evidence of that. Manul is not responsible for v:User:Friend of Manul nor v:Manuls brother.
w:User:Mikemikev, blocked on Wikipedia, may have been the target of impersonation, as have been others; this appears to be a developed behavior.
There are piles of false accusations, in many places, from AP, and he is essentially a troll, seeking to upset others. Yes, I’ve been spending a lot of time on this case over the last week or so, because AP had done extensive damage, harming others through impersonation, personal attack (often with outing) and damaging wiki content. It took a great deal of research, looking at maybe hundreds of pages, to put together what had happened, and that, then, led to steward requests, granted, and the basic conclusions were confirmed, and then the threatening and menacing response that followed demonstrated deeply the character of this person. He’s obsessed, obviously. I spent a week, he has spent at least six years, with some indications of more than that.
Off-wiki activity will not be documented here unless permitted by wiki administration. But the user does, himself, provide some documentation, as can be seen above. Rome Viharo was a long-term target who decided to fight back.
Per w:WP:stalking, documenting the behavior of wiki users is not, per se, stalking. It is ordinary research, and, in fact, this SPA routinely violated privacy in filing Wikipedia sock puppet investigations and in recent editing.

Tracking one case back

This starts with an account on Wikiversity: v:User:Sci-fi- This led to w:User:Michael skater on Wikipedia. A host of accounts, including this one, were identified by a steward as likely related.
Looking at the list of accounts Identified as Michael skater, I found two that had only edited Commons, one upload each. These were accounts that would be of high interest to Mikemikev, or at least possibly so.
(Interests of Mikemikev, at that time, would overlap those of AP/O. The link between Mikemikev and AP came from RationalWiki, as found by another here. There is more misdirection by an AP sock there. The puppet master here has done what he did on Wikipedia, on other wikis, creating impersonation accounts, creating misdirected responses. He has succeeded in getting targets blocked and banned elsewhere.)
I requested block of those accounts and deletion of the remaining image upload, and that was promptly done. The image ofw:John Fuerst that was deleted led to a usage on RationalWiki, asserted there by a user immediately after upload, and that image went to a redlink when the Commons image was deleted, causing attention and re-upload on RationalWiki. This, then, led, through IP evidence, to recently active IP editing Wikipedia, working on an article that had been the work of w:User:HealthyGirl, blocked as a sock of w:User:Anglo Pyramidologist. John Fuerst himself would be a particular interest of AP/O, while HG’s interests might match those of AP/D. This kind of cross-over seems common. The IP would, then, could be shared IP, linking the two users. The AP accounts have created an incredible mess.
This edit is astonishing. An identified sock of AP, [w:User:Evil Boglin] accuses another, w:User:Goblin Face, of being AP andw:User:HealthyGirl. In this edit, another AP sock, w:User:Late night joggersee this diff, defends HG and is whacked by the admin. The arguments are similar to those made recently by AP/D, and AP/D is apparently real-life involved with one of the founders of Guerilla Skeptics, who might share some agenda on occasion. “Involved” must likely be real-life because of IP identification. GS users come from many locations, though, what has been amazing to me is how much this has *not* been the case. Fooling checkuser is not all that difficult, but AP doesn’t seem to bother. I will not detail how it can be done!
Writing styles may be different. However, a person may also wear more than one hat. Real-life data has shown — I am told by a source I deem reliable — that there are, however, two brothers with the names asserted in various places on the web. So the “my brother did it” excuse, the subject of some level of ridicule on Wikipedia, may actually be somewhat true. But both brothers were disruptive and blocked in their own right. Birds of a feather may have literally been born together.
Again, looking for connections, I looked back at Wikiversity history for accounts with similar behavior, and found several, and one of those led me to Mikemikev as an identified puppet master, from Wikipedia checkuser that caught them. Since Single-unified login, Wikipedia logins are created, often, automatically for people who register on Wikiversity, so Wikipedia checkuser may pick up a consequence of Wikiversity activity. Listed as a Mikemikev sock was w:User:Goblin Face which then connects with even older accounts. I took this back to Anglo Pyramidologist. These various puppet master accounts had not been connected on Wikipedia.
The link to mikemikev was likely an error; rather the same interest would be relevant for AP, long-term. —Abd (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The older Wikiversity SPA accounts possibly involved (listing here is not necessarily a claim of disruptive behavior):
Link to external web site removed as containing personal identifying information.
(This was from the original SPA study on Wikiversity, revision deleted. It was a page containing the name of one of the Smith brothers, perhaps this one.
The site is a Wikipedia criticism site, started by someone who had experienced high disruption on Wikipedia. There are many such sites, his would be relatively sober. His site led me back to w:User:Dan skeptic, who created an “alternate account” before being blocked. That was w:User:Goblin Face, a name I was familiar with from years back, having seen the disruption well before Goblin Face was blocked. Sometimes Wikipedia continues with w:WP:AGF well beyond sanity, as long as vulnerable editors are being attacked, i.e., editors with some minority point of view. DS and GF were a sometimes-not-recognized kind of SPAs, i.e., a “skeptical” point of view — and it is a point of view, as practiced by the abusers — will appear as an interest in many different articles and someone may look at contributions and not see the connection. But a high level of attack on others, not Assuming Good Faith, should properly cause a suspension of that assumption with regard to them. This may actually happen if there is an Arbitration case, but, unfortunately, Wikipedia can be a bit like Lord of the Flies. The “community” — meaning those who show up — can be a vicious mob, not the intention of “consensus” enshrined in policy. A structural problem, and considered quite a difficult one.
In any case, the ”’redacted”’ page refers to brothers. In one of the old SPI discussions, one brother claimed that problem edits were by his brother. This is a common sock defense. However, there may actually be two brothers. As well, the user is aware of defense against checkuser. I have historically, found ways to penetrate the defense, but it is tedious and requires co-temporal editing, it is not useful for sequential socking. The user claims that Ben Steigmann used a defense, but there is no sign that Ben used any active method of avoiding detection. Rather, pot, kettle, black. Maybe. The user did not use defensive methods in the recent Attack of the Massive Inpersonating Socks — possibly because he wanted them all to be identified as socks, but as socks of Steigmann! Howeeer, he also did not use defensive methods to protect *other accounts” which were then revealed. This is the realilty of using VPNS to avoid detection: it’s a nuisance, and given that one can, with low cost, use new accounts as throwaways, an LTA may not bother. He will create accounts to toss mud, he will do it as quickly as possible, and maybe some will stick.
These are just pointers to tracks. There is at least one w:WP:LTA here in fact, though not in recognition on that page. Hundreds of socks. Maybe more than one LTA. This much is clear at this point. Ben Steigmann, the supposed target, is not an LTA. I just reviewed his Blastikus talk page. Very common story. Editor writes too much. Nobody was advising him, just warning him, and nobody telling him what the actual problem was. He did eventually figure it out, but did not know how to recover. When I was active on Wikipedia, I used to identify such users and advise them. If they listened, they often avoided being blocked. I saw only one serious process there: An [ ANI notice] in May, 2011. Common practice on this used to annoy the hell out of me, because when one comes along later, finding the notice is a PITA. However, I know how to do it. What can be tricky is finding the full discussion, not just how it looked when that notice was posted. Here it is. My, my, my. Very common problem. User is convinced an article is Wrong, and then argues at great length on the Talk page. It does matter if he is right or wrong, this will be very much disliked by the community. So when he is warned, he thinks the warning is aying that he is Wrong. About what he’s been advocating. No, and then he’s taken to ANI. And what does he do? He argues — at great length, and with low skill — that he is right. Sometimes users like this can be helped, but Wikipedia typically has no patience for them. Wikiversity does, basically, the Wikiversity structure allows almost endless expression, within reasonable limits, especially on a single page or a tight family of pages, not presented as “neutral.” And if what he was claiming is considered truly offensive (such as it actually being “anti-Semitic,” a point he was arguing endlessly about — or it actually appearing so, because what counts in community decisions is appearance, not necessarily reality — he’d be stopped. But when he eventually came to Wikiversity, he did not misbehave. And I’ve seen that again and again. Give a disruptive user something constructive to do, something of interest to them, many will become constructive. Blastikus was blocked, as was more or less predictable. Looking at his block log, my thought is “They shoot baby seals.” It used to be that if a user was disruptive, there were graduated blocks, to get the user’s attention. Here, the user was immediately indef blocked. I agree that a block was appropriate, but zero to indef in one action? However, some administrators have zero tolerance for what they don’t understand — or have a view of “disruptive users” that they cannot change. Users can change, it it is rare that it happens in one day. So Blastikus argued with the blocks with repeated unblock templates. Nobody told him this was a Bad Idea. If there are pages giving guidance for what to do if blocked, what works — and what doesn’t work — I never saw them. Maybe I should have created one, but I pretty much know what would have happened. It would have been attacked as So, then, sock puppet investigations.
Joe Slovo blocked by duck test, which is heavily vulnerable to possible “POV ban,” i.e, a user with an apparent POV similar to that of a blocked user is blocked as a sock “by the duck test.” It happens fairly commonly.
Pottinger’s Cats blocked, as possibly compromised account. Possible impersonation. A very suspicious “confession.” I will check to see later if Steigmann acknowledged this account. [He did. —Abd (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]
Pile of IPs. Checkuser ID’s as same IP user as topic banned [9]. No identification as Blastikus at this point. (ban was a discretionary sanction, meaning only one admin created it. ArbComm created that to make arbitration enforcement easier, then POV admins drove a truck through it. Which is not a claim that this particular action was incorrect, just that these things are not necessarily reliable.
The SPI was filed by vzaak. That seems familiar to me. User talk page was deleted, for personal attacks. User name gone. The page history was concealed by the one who copied content from another page. Well, I’ve been here before. Finding another talk page edit signed with “vzaak” the edit was at 23:40, 31 August 2013. Page history tells me vzaak wasw:User:Manul(the edit). I was unable to find the user rename log; there was a usurpation involved.
Ben Steigmann was almost certainly the real Ben Steigmann. Steigmann had registered a Wikiversity account and was using it. This autocreated a Wikipedia account, and it easily happens that the user goes to Wikipedia, is not blocked, and just edits, may not even realize that they are logged in, if they have been editing by IP. There was only one edit. It may be a continuation of edits by [10]. This was in a discussion with w:Goblin Face. Fully disentangling this mess would take more time than I’m willing to devote. Ben Steigmann was not blocked as a result of this report, but did not edit again, He was not blocked until
Pottinger’s cats was accused above, blocked, and accused again. Evidence? supposed confession, easily spoofed. That’s a pattern here, seen most egregiously in the later SPI, with a large pile of impersonating socks. There is no sign of Steigmann being a massively disruptive sock puppeteer, this entire Blastikus archive, up until the activity this year (2017) was quite weak compared to LTAs and compared to AP.
Manul also filed a request for ban for Blastikus. The request failed. My conclusion: Blastikus is not banned on Wikipedia.Any admin could unblock; properly they would want to see assurances of low risk of disruption. It would be easier to request this for Ben Steigmann, as a real-name account with no special history of disruption (other than a relatively low level of block evasion, not necessarily disruptive in itself. But an unblock request could avoid considering most of that, with mere disclosure of actual socking and then a commitment to using a single account and avoiding old behaviors. It’s actually easy, unless some faction massively attacks — which could happen in this case.
In recent discussions, it has commonly been said that Blastikus is banned on Wikipedia. No, apparently not. Neither has any unblock request been refused since 2011. However, my private information is that Steigmann (Blastikus) may not want to return. If he does, he might want a new account. Those are all issues for him and his future. For now, he’s unblocked on Wikiversity and he may not care even about that.
(Steigmann was later unblocked on Wikiversity as a result of the checkuser investigations, and his resource was restored, and as soon as he started editing it, again, he was attacked again. To be sure, he had socked on Wikipedia, though relatively harmlessly. The attack on him was, this time, by an IP user massively complaining on Wikipedia, Contributions/, which then also attacked him on Wikiversity and now has shown up here. That’s an open proxy. This is the LTA, certainly, from some of the edits. Note added 02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC))
What I care about is the massive disruption caused by long-term attack on Steigmann, and on alleged “pseudoscience” that is not clearly such — and, even if it is pseudoscience, Wikiversity can cover alleged pseudoscience if it is done in a neutral fashion, and, unlike an encyclopedia, Wikiversity neutrality allows full presentation of alternate points of view (there is no notability policy, only neutrality), and attacks showed up on anyone who assisted Steigmann, such as me, now as in the past. I will also document this, it has been done almost entirely through SPAs, probably socks of the Sock Ring described recently. When Wikiversity users and their work is attacked by SPAs with nothing to lose, it is incumbent on the entire Wikiversity community to defend them and Wikiversity resources, and when this is lost, due to various excuses or just plain neglect, the entire Wikiversity project is at risk. The abusers will almost always go after those they perceive as vulnerable. If they succeed, they will be emboldened and they will then go after bigger targets.

Wikipedia neutral or not neutral?

Well, what is it? Inquiring minds want to know. First of all, the policy.

The policy follows the “impartial” or “objective” journalistic model, as described in this document from

Supporters of this tradition feel it is the most honest form of reporting, attempting to lay out all sides of the issue fairly so that readers can make their own decisions. Reporters and editors following an objective model generally conceal their personal political beliefs and their opinions on controversial issues.

It is not necessary to conceal one’s own point of view, but the effort of an “impartial” journalist is to cover the topic, not their own opinions. As pointed out in the essay, if they do write about their opinions (as distinct from the facts on which those opinions might be based), this is labelled or distinguished as opinion.

Objective journalism does not require so-called “he said, she said” reporting that just cites the arguments or each side without seeking to draw any conclusions. Objective reporters can judge the weight of evidence on various sides of a dispute and tailor accordingly the amount of space they give various opinions. There is no need to provide “false equivalence” — treating every opinion equally.

News media following the objective model may express opinions in clearly labeled editorials, commentaries and cartoons, but those views should not affect the organization’s news reports.

Calling the neutrality goal “Neutral Point of View” was misleading, because “impartial reporting” is not a “point of view.” It’s a choice, a decision, a practice, the goal being to present, for Wikipedia, encyclopedic information that is not based on some point of view, but that provides readers with the information they might need to make their own assessments. There has been long-term conflict on Wikipedia over the interpretation of this, and what is remarkable is that there are users and administrators who openly prefer advocacy reporting, who have edited in conflict with others, and used tools to enforce, their own obvious point of view.

It has been called the “scientific point of view,” which was also a misnoer, because science, by definition, has no point of view, but seeks to establish knowledge through testing of ideas. Humans have points of view, not abstractions like “science.” Scientists often have points of view. In fact, scientists often get blocked on wikipedia for expressing them.

Again from the Policy:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a “see also” to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Wikipedia made a decision very early, not based on extensive experience, to use a flat model, with all encyclopedia articles sitting in a single namespace, called “mainspace.” Subpages are not allowed in mainspace. Wikiversity decided differently, having had more experience. The flat model discouraged exploration of detail. So the Wikipedia article on the Earth does mention Flat earth ideas, by linking to the article. By doing so, the coverage becomes complete, and roughly proportionate to coverage in reliable source.

Notice: the standard for inclusion of material is coverage in reliable sources, a term of art for Wikipedia, a substitute for having an actual editorial staff of experts making notability and reliability decisions. However, in actual practice, the flexibility allowed creates situations where a point of view, especially if held by a significant faction of users, can warp what is allowed for inclusion and can effectively exclude from the entire project, information presented in reliable sources, because of editorial opinion about what is accepted by “most scientists,” as it is often put.

Reliable sources include the expression of opinions, not all are purely factual. So if some reliable source shows an opinion that “most scientists consider parapsychology a pseudoscience,” as a real example, this is then often reported in articles as if a fact, rather than the opinion it often is. However, perhaps there was a poll. The fact is the poll and objective reporting would cover that poll, where it was appropriate. If there are other sources which treat parapsychology as a science (which it clearly was, by intention, the “scientific study of claims of the paranormal”), these will then be labelled by anti-fringe users as “fringe,” which is synthesis, often, i.e., the insertion of personal judgment for reporting of verifiable information.

And “most scientists,” if they have not studied a topic, have opinions that are not much more informed than those of anyone else. Generally, they may depend on what others they consider to be informed have said, and this can be an information cascade. In the case of parapsychology, they may readily confuse parapsychology itself with belief or promotion of the claims studied. They may have an opinion that all paranormal claims are false, unsupported. Is that opinion a scientific fact? Consider what it would require! There are two aspects to a claim:

The first aspect is the evidence, and the second aspect is analysis. So there is a claim, perhaps, of some “paranormal ability,” and the bottom line for classifying a claim as “paranormal” is that it is not understood, or not understood scientifically, and it may seem to conflict with ordinary understanding of how the universe operates. Is the investigation of the unknown “pseudoscientific”? Investigation will develop evidence. Suppose the evidence shows that the so-called “psychic” was a fraud. Was the investigation — parapsychology in modern times — therefore “pseudoscientific”? Hardly.

Basically, if people are asked survey questions who are not experts on the topic, their responses might be poorly informed. But a collection of those responses might well be published in reliable source. Does it therefore become “fact,” which can be reported on Wikipedia without attribution?

Notice that with attribution, anything can become a “fact.” That is, if the attributed report is verifiable by looking at the source, that such and such was said or claimed is “verifiable fact,” not that the statement or claim was necessarily true.

When I began, as a Wikipedia editor, looking at Cold fusion, what I saw was that sources were being cherry-picked, and, as well, an administrator had blacklisted the main site where one could read scientific papers on the topic. At that point, I was quite skeptical about cold fusion, believing the common wisdom, that nobody could replicate the original findings. That claim, by the way, is still found in many articles on cold fusion in reliable sources, particularly newspaper or tertiary sources not actually focused on the topic, but which mention the inability to replicate in passing.  When I attempted to balance the article, as policy would require (this was, after all, on an arguably fringe topic, so covering it more thoroughly than in an article on nuclear fusion would be appropriate) I ran into high resistance. I have since researched coverage of cold fusion on Wikipedia and saw that this went way back. Many arguments were advanced to avoid covering what should be, by Wikipedia guidelines and Arbitration Committee rulings, golden for science articles. One of the principle ones was “undue weight.”

Yet this was an article on a subject that was poorly defined. First of all, it was called “cold fusion,” first, in media (I think the first to apply the idea of “fusion” to the anomalous heat seen by Pons and Fleischmann in 1984 and first reported publically in 1989, was the University of Utah press office, but it caught on, and Pons and Fleischmann themselves were iffy about it. They actually claimed an “unknown nuclear reaction.” The only nuclear evidence they had were some detections of neutrons (an error, artifact), tritium (actually confirmed by others but of unclear implications and not at levels expected if the reaction were producing tritium through ordinary deuterium fusion) and inference from the energy density they calculated, which was weak; and confirming their work was very difficult. Even they had trouble with it, later. (The finding of anomalous heat in palladium deuteride was later confirmed by many groups, but it remains a difficult experiment).

Cold fusion immediately became, by 1989 or 1990, a fringe topic. That is, the idea that there actually was a nuclear reaction taking place in the material studied was largely rejected, but it was never conclusively shown that the original work was defective as to the report of heat. There is still no successful and verifiable theory of mechanism, but a practical theory has emerged that is verifiable, and it has been widely confirmed, and this is reported in scientific journals, and not just in primary sources. There are multiple secondary sources, peer-reviewed reviews of the issue or of the field in general including the issue or of some aspect of the field that takes this practical theory as a given, and that is that the reported heat is explained by the conversion of deuterium to helium, without significant loss of energy to other products or radiation. That conversion, by the laws of thermodynamics, must generate the observed energy in some form or other. (In classic hot deuterium fusion, if helium is the product, the large bulk of the energy is released as a high-energy photon (gamma). This is not observed (which caused many to reject helium as a possible product, “because no gammas.”)

So, the entire Wikipedia article is on a fringe topic. Many sources from almost thirty years ago reject cold fusion as a phenomenon worthy of study. The formal reviews, by the way, (1989 and 2004, U.S. DoE) did not do that; these are merely widespread opinions, back then. As it happens, if one restricts a source study to mainstream peer reviewed journals and academic publications, the best sources, there are more papers considered positive on cold fusion than there are negative. But that cannot be reported on Wikipedia because it is synthesis. As to reviews of cold fusion, I studied papers in Wikipedia qualified reliable source (or should be), published since 2005 on Wikiversity

I count 19 peer-reviewed or academically published reviews, in the period 20015-2012. In 2015, there were 34 papers published in Current Science, a peer-reviewed publication of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Some of them are reviews (such as my paper there). Are any of these reviews, over twenty, cited in the Wikipedia cold fusion article? Yes.

A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS).[12][13][14][15]

15. Biberian, Jean-Paul (2007), “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion): An Update” (PDF), International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, 3 (1): 31–42, doi:10.1504/IJNEST.2007.012439

Links shown are to the Wikipedia article or, for Biberian, to a copy on his web site. I cover some of these sources here: [15] [16]

15. Biberian is a general review of the field (as of 2007), and would be reliable source. All that is taken from it is the name shift. Isn’t that a bit odd? There is another paper that I did not classify as a review, ([16], Labinger & Weininger), but it could be taken that way (and there are other sources that are not peer-reviewed as scientific papers).

Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for mainstream scientific publications.[16]

16. Goodstein 1994,Labinger & Weininger 2005, p. 1919

From Goodstein (my emphasis):

Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don’t receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.

Who believes that about “serious science”? Goodstein, physics professor at Cal Tech, apparently. Goodstein covers the “fiasco,” the total mess of 1989 and beyond. He ends up with what became my position, very quickly, which was very unpopular with the editors sitting on the Wikipedia article. What was a casual, off-hand remark that actually makes little sense when closely examined, if taken literally, is what is selected from him. That was his opinion. He expresses other opinions, which are ignored. Why?

Because, I came to think, the anti-fringe faction believes they are wrong. By the way, by “serious science,” Goodstein was not claiming that cold fusion was real. He was claiming that there is genuine research and there are some genuine mysteries, things not understood yet.

What Goodstein wrote, in 1994, was about the very large body of research reports that are not published under mainstream peer review. That’s a loss, created by the difficulty of publishing experimental results in some journals. But others accepted papers and the issue obviously does not apply to what is published under peer review. So research published in that was does receive — or would be expected to receive, normally — the necessary critique. My position is that genuine skepticism is essential to science, and critique within the field is crucial and necessary.

The article presents Goodstein’s 1994 comment as if it describes the present situation. Does it?

And then there is Labinger and Weininger, 2005.  It isn’t easy to find a copy of this paper, but I have one. It’s a decent report of the history of the cold fusion controversy. It does not support what is attributed to it.  Because of the importance of this study, I am uploading a copy of the paper, claiming fair use. The page referenced is 1919, but the entire paper is worth reading. Again, there is much in this paper relevant to what have been major issues with the Wikipedia article, and it’s been ignored. Heat/helium correlation is covered, as was known to the authors in 2004 (and there is much that they apparently didn’t know, but they were certainly aware of the significance of the correlation claim). I will probably write a fuller review of the paper.

The heat/helium correlation is still not covered in the Wikipedia article. All attempts to refer to it were reverted on various excuses or sometimes no excuse. Yet Labinger and Weininger, in 2005, considered this significant.

So how does this happen? It’s what I called MPOV-pushing, Majority Point of View Pushing, and in practical terms, “Majority” does not refer to the “majority of experts on the topic,” nor to “the majority of scientists,” nor even to the “majority of Wikipedia editors,” but rather to the “majority of those who are watching an article and who have not been blocked or driven away by the majority faction.”

And that faction has been quite open about opposing neutrality policy. Here is an essay by an editor, Manul,  Neutral and proportionate point of view.

There was no participation in that page by other than the author, and there is no comment on the Talk page, but it’s linked from many pages.

The neutral point of view policy does not prescribe neutrality, in a certain sense of the word. When there are competing points of view, Wikipedia does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. Wikipedia’s less-than-obvious meaning of “neutral point of view” is a perennial source of confusion.

NPOV editing would be “objective and impartial.” “Points of view” are actually irrelevant. The problem is in determining “weight,” because Wikipedia verifiability rests on what appears in reliable sources, and the faction tends to reject sources that “promote” views it opposes. That judgment is synthesis; it’s prohibited in text, but infects the process by which text is selected — or rejected.

How the faction distorts the subject is by creating “balance” that reflects their own views, by cherry-picking from a vast array of sources of differing quality and relevance. And the strongest sources, for how cold fusion is currently viewed, would be those peer-reviewed reviews. In my opinion, that balance is itself somewhat skewed as to general scientific opinion, because, as pointed out by Labinger and Weininger and others, most scientists are not aware of “recent research,” which includes much research published as early as a few years after Pons and Fleischmann announced. From what I’ve seen, many scientists will argue that the biggest problem with cold fusion was the absence of a nuclear product, and that argument depends on ignorance of the heat/helium correlation.

Facts are not points of view; they may be used in arguments to support or oppose a point of view. But if a fact is verifiable by reliable source, my position was that the fact belongs somewhere in the project. For example, there are claims of evidence for a flat earth. If these appear in reliable source (which might be an article on the Flat Earth BS, published by a reliable secondary source as Wikipedia requires), they belong in the project somewhere, assuming that an article on the topic exists, which it can if there is enough reliable source. It only takes a few for an article, and only one for a mention.

The faction would exclude these arguing that they would be undue weight in an article, but would also disallow and historically opposed creating a new article that would include those facts, being more specific and balanced within the topic of that new article.

Presenting an argument against some position while not presenting the position itself is clearly POV expression.

Effectively, evidence that they think contrary to their point of view has been excluded. The essay by Manul is not completely wrong, but is misleading, because the issue is not the “weight of points of view,” but the “weight of what is in reliable source.” If all of that is presented somewhere in wikipedia, and properly linked and contexted, what is “mainstream” will become obvious.

Yes, there can be reliable source claiming that such and such is fringe or pathological science or pseudoscience. However, are there reliable sources that claim other than that? And if a source claims something is fringe, but another reliable source accepts that thing and covers it, is the latter to be excluded because a source claims it is fringe?

That exclusion, which has obviously happened, is not neutral in the meaning of the policy. As a practical reality, opinion shifts over time, and the opinions of experts can differ from that of the majority, so there is also the fact that what is “fringe” may vary with time.

There are rejected views that exist in reliable source. “Reliable source” does not become unreliable because opinions expressed became obsolete. Rather, it would be covered somewhere, in the project I and many others envisioned. “The sum of human knowledge” includes mistakes that were made.

I never attempted to present cold fusion, in the article, as other than fringe, but simply to present what was in reliable sources, following policy. This was heavily attacked. On the talk page, however, I argued that the extreme skeptical view, favored by many editing that article, had disappeared from scientific journals long ago, and that cold fusion was being routinely accepted, in some journals. Not in all. There were journals that vowed, in 1990 or so, to never again publish an article on cold fusion. All this, by the way, is not some vague conspiracy theory, it’s well-covered in sources accepted by Wikipedia, such as Simon, academically published, Undead Science, mentioned by Labinger and Weininger.

Wikipedia never developed reliable structure to deal with factional POV pushing. Yet it obviously exists, with some administrators being among the pushers.

Is Wikipedia neutral? No. It could be, and it often is. There are many editors who understand the principles — as are well-known to experienced journalists. The “He said, she said” style of journalism is lazy and shallow, and the idea of neutrality as being “in the middle,” as Manul decries, is a primitive idea, a straw man. However, what the principles behind the NPOV policy suggest is allowing the weight in the sources (which means, effectively, the weight of the sources) to determine the balance of articles.

Factional, POV editing pushes out information, even though reliably sourced, that contradicts the faction’s point of view.

I found that this only happened when there wasn’t broad community attention. Factional POV-pushing, then, thrives in the noise, the huge volume of activity on Wikipedia, where a faction can, through what is created by watchlists, appear to be in the majority, and can revert-war out what they don’t like, and they did, long-term.

When broad attention was attracted, as with RfC or other process, they would lose and articles would be improved. So a priority for the faction came to be eliminating or disempowering users who could skillfully manage creating those processes, within policy. And so there is an essay written originally by a factional administrator: Civil POV pushing

There is philosophy that developed of creating a neutral encyclopedia by excluding editors who were not neutral.

As can easily be understood, that was doomed, because nobody is always neutral. Very rarely are those who  become highly informed on a topic completely neutral, having developed no point of view.

What human organizations develop, that need objective judgement, is process, and there is only one real standard for assessing neutrality: consensus, with the degree of neutrality generally being measurable through the degree of consensus, including all participants willing to behave civilly. Civility is crucial to this.

In standard deliberative process, if a member of an assembly is uncivil, they are not banned, but asked to sit down, and if they refuse, they are conducted from the room. To actually ban a member from a deliberative assembly generally takes a supermajority vote, after announcement, and it’s rare. Most people will cooperate with an attempt of a chair to maintain order. So if the chair orders a member excluded from the room (the equivalent of a block on Wikipedia), that only applies to the immediate session. Wikipedia went for “quick,” i.e., :”wiki,” and lost the power to develop consensus as a result. It famously takes time and much discussion.

In fact, however, wiki process as it developed on Wikipedia is incredibly inefficient, failing to establish real consensus after massive discussions, enormous wastes of time, because few do the real study needed. Instead it’s quick: Keep/Delete, Block/Unblock, and if you argue, Ban. Or if you argue for what a strong faction likes, ”Unban.” Even after massive process to determine a need for a drastic change in behavior.

What I saw from the author of the CPOV essay was gross incivility from him and those whom he supported and who supported him. These users, including administrators, could freely and with little restraint insult those who disagreed with them. Before I was involved with cold fusion, the faction was not doing well before the Arbitration Committee. The open “SPOV (Scientific Point of View) pushers” had suffered losses in arbitration and thus we can see disgust with the Arbitration Committee in the essay — though I agree that they failed to deal with the issues. Then there was the first cold fusion arbitration, in 2008.

I was largely unaware of this case until later. (And at the time I was quite skeptical about cold fusion.) There was no finding of improper behavior (by which I mean behavior not matched at least as strongly by those arguing for Pcarbonn to be banned), rather the core finding by the Committee was this:

3) Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy[1] [2][3] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [4], and edit warring. [5][6]. For more complete evidence see [7][8][9].

The “stated agenda” links to a screed by JzG (Guy) on the Administrator’s Noticeboard. JzG was far from neutral, I established that later, he was involved in the controversy. So they validated JzG’s agenda by blaming the problem on Pcarbonn instead of looking at the underlying cause of the continued dispute. (And JzG, emboldened, then proceeded to act even more disruptively, leading him to blacklist out-of-process, which I noticed and confronted, purely as a neutral editor …. and JzG will never mention it, but that first arbitration led to his reprimand. But nothing was done to actually restrain his POV-pushing. He resigned his admin tools in disgust, but, then, because the resignation was after the ruling, he was able to request them back and then work, piece by piece, over time, to get revenge.)

What was the “stated agenda”? JzG wrote:

See also WP:COIN. The long and the short of it is, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) has written an article in a fringe journal, New Energy Times, openly admitting that he has been pursuing a years-long agenda to skew the article Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) to be more favourable to the fringe views proomoted by that journal, [10] and especially [11]. Example:

“I’m pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research … I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers”.


Few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate.

That note was from Steve Krivit, not Pcarbonn.

The source given by ArbComm does not support the claim. The whole article should  be read (the old links are dead), it is here. Pcarbonn was claiming that the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process worked. What he was allegedly “promoting” was what is quite obvious from recent sources, including the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review.  An “agenda to skew the article” would be far from reality for Pcarbonn. But ArbComm fell for it.

In addition the edits they point to with “[1][2][3] “do not support the claim. They have stated that they do not wish to rule on content issues, but what Pcarbonn was claiming in those edits is easily supportable from sources, and they seem to infer an agenda from pointing to what would be, for him, simple knowledge found in reliable source (or at least sources accepted by most editors). That’s ruling on a content issue, by using an opinion or claim as evidence of improper agenda to promote that opinion, while claiming they were not so ruling.

I am not here looking at the behavioral claims, i.e., the alleged results of “battlefield mentality,” (revert warring and incivility), but Pcarbonn’s accusers had, for years, in many situations, behaved as badly or worse (and continue). Assumptions of bad faith have been routine for them, and it is still going on. Pcarbonn had been able to work through mediation to improve the article, but the faction (JzG and Science Apologist being prominent factional users) did not like the results, so they got rid of him, it’s pretty much that simple. They knew what arguments might appeal to the Committee, and this time they prevailed. Science Apologist was only a few months away from being sanctioned himself, but he was able to later return with no restrictions, with factional support that misrepresented the history to the community.

The Arbitration Committee did not have the sophistication to realize that “POV pushing” is human, and normal, and that what we would hope for is “Civil POV pushers,” who will negotiate in good faith, and seek consensus.

Instead, “POV pushing” is considered a crime, and experts get banned frequently, because they have a point of view and argue for it. A sane Wikipedia community would guide them toward advising the community, to provide sources. A “fringe POV pusher,” is likely to know better than anyone else what reliable sources exist, if they exist.

I argued before the Arbitration Committee that Wikipedia might consider suggesting that experts declare their credentials and with that be treated as having a conflict of interest (since Wikipedia does not want them as “authorities,” but would — or should — respect and consider their advice. An expert (which would include “cranks” and “crackpots”) is likely to be aware of the best sources, but should not be judging whether or not these are adequate. Those are editorial decisions, which on Wikipedia would be made according to policies, not “truth,” or even “expert opinion.”

By banning experts, and, relative to the other editors involved, Pcarbonn was an expert, Wikipedia warped the article.

Other experts, including scientists, showed up, but generally did not understand how Wikipedia worked and tended to argue “truth,” an easy mistake to make.

JzG actually disclosed, at one point, where his POV came from. He had a friend who was an electrochemist and he had asked the friend about the article, from before Pcarbonn and others had worked on it, apparently, and he thought it was “pretty good,” as I recall. So, JzG concluded, Pcarbonn and others must be wrong. He had a point of view, and he pushed it relentlessly, and continued to do so, but it was not a point of view based on expertise, nor on the best reliable sources, but on emotional reactions and personal opinion. JzG was famous for radical incivility, long before I ever became involved. And it continued, it’s still going on….

Pcarbonn faced, as I later faced, some outrageous opposition, and commented about it, which could look bad. But I have not examined those specific claims. I’m just looking, now, at what was cited by ArbComm as the proof of an “agenda contrary to policy.” It wasn’t there. So they imagined it, synthesized it, which, I found, was all too common. They did themselves what they accused Pcarbonn of, not “assuming good faith,” but assuming an intention to violate policy — which was not shown in the evidence given. And they did it unanimously, which is scary.

(Later, the ArbComm mailing list was hacked. ArbComm considers it valuable to present a face of consensus to the community, but that is negotiated privately, on the list. So much for open process.)

(One point: I think they considered Science Apologist an expert. He was indeed a physicist, but that conveys almost no expertise on cold fusion, only on the theoretical reasons to expect it’s impossible, which is not controversial. That is, “cold fusion” is not well defined, but the common concept of it, the easy assumption from the name, is probably impossible and SA would know why — and so do I.

Yet that argument is also flawed, and was known to be flawed. Basically, perhaps something is happening that we have not anticipated. Low-temperature fusion is not “impossible,” but a first approximation of rate, for d-d fusion, which is what everyone thinks of first when “fusion” is mentioned in connection with the heat effect, would have the rate be very, very, very low. However, rate cannot be calculated for an “unknown nuclear reaction,” which is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed. That fact, by the way, is not mentioned in the article. My source for it would be primary, the actual first paper. Here it is: (my emphasis).

… We realise that the results reported here raise more questions than they provide answers, and that much further work is required on this topic. … The most surprising feature of our results however, is that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably again due to deuterons).

The title of the article as printed was “Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium”; however, I have seen claims that as-submitted, there was a question mark after this, dropped in the editorial process. The matter was enormously confused by the coverage of the classic d-d reaction, because they apparently believed they had detected those neutrons, and tritium as well, which, as to the neutrons, was artifact and error. Looking at that paper now, numerous errors stand out. This was rushed and sloppy — and apparently did not disclose enough to allow replication.

There is later work reporting neutron production from PdD, but the levels are extremely low, and have never been correlated with heat. There is also later work finding tritium, but roughly a million times down from what is apparently the primary product, helium. And, again, I have seen no attempts to determine if tritium was correlated with heat. Experiments tended to look for one or the other, or if they looked for both, as in some of the famous replication failures, they found neither.

“Fusion” also appears in the University of Utah press release.

Again, I’ve seen a claim that this came from the press office, not Pons and Fleischmann.

My favorite counterexample to the “impossibility” argument is to point to a form of cold fusion that is not controversial, it is accepted as a reality, and the argument as to why “cold fusion is impossible” does not consider it. Muon-catalyzed fusion takes place at very low temperatures.

What we know of as “cold fusion” is definitely not muon-catalyzed fusion, but the naive impossibility arguments don’t think of exceptions, i.e., what if there is some catalyst? MCF (or an equivalent with another catalysis, perhaps some kind electron catalysis) isn’t happening because MCF has the same branching ratio as hot fusion, and would generate fatal levels of neutrons (from the level of heat reported), so a simple catalyst causing ordinary d-d fusion cannot be the explanation of cold fusion. But what if the reactants are not just two deuterons (and some catalytic condition)? Basically, what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed was an “unknown nuclear reaction” and the later-developed evidence, still excluded from the article even though very amply covered in reliable source, does not tell us the actual reaction, only the fuel and the “ash” or nuclear product.

I still find it hard to believe that the strong helium claim remains, after so many years, and in spite of ample coverage in peer-reviewed and academically publish sources — including sources cited in the article for other, relatively trivial matters, totally excluded. What the article has on helium is this:

In response to doubts about the lack of nuclear products, cold fusion researchers have tried to capture and measure nuclear products correlated with excess heat.[121] Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[13]However, the reported levels are very near to background, so contamination by trace amounts of helium normally present in the air cannot be ruled out. In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, the reviewers’ opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; with the most negative reviews concluding that although the amounts detected were above background levels, they were very close to them and therefore could be caused by contamination from air.[122]

(The links in the article quotations are to the Wikipedia notes, but I will cover some of these sources below. [121] [13] [122])

Ugh. “In response to doubts” was POV synthesis. There was a search for nuclear products, from the beginning. Helium was not expected, from “fusion theory.” The lack of other products (especially neutrons) was a cause for doubt that a nuclear reaction was involved. But helium can be a nuclear product. Helium was found to be correlated, but that is not stated, only that there was a search for it. Describing this as a reaction to doubts follows the debunkers’ opinions that this is based on fanatic belief, trying to prove the belief. Not good science.

Other nuclear products have indeed been reported (at very low levels), but only helium has been correlated with heat. Tritium has been widely observed, but still only, roughly, a million times down from helium; if tritium is being produced, it is probably from some side-reaction or rare branch. No attempt was made, to my knowledge, to compare tritium levels with heat reports. The discovery that helium and heat were correlated was not announced until 1991, by Miles, and that fact was reported by Huizenga in his book — also reliable source. He was quite skeptical but considered the report astonishing, as it would “solve a major mystery of cold fusion,” as I recall. All this, of high importance in the history of cold fusion, is missing.

One of the main criticisms of cold fusion was that deuteron-deuteron fusion into helium was expected to result in the production of gamma rays—which were not observed and were not observed in subsequent cold fusion experiments.[40][123] Cold fusion researchers have since claimed to find X-rays, helium, neutrons[124] and nuclear transmutations.[125] Some researchers also claim to have found them using only light water and nickel cathodes.[124] The 2004 DOE panel expressed concerns about the poor quality of the theoretical framework cold fusion proponents presented to account for the lack of gamma rays.[122]

The new sources are [40] [123] [124] [125].

[121] The 2010 Hagelstein review in Naturwissenschaften, being cited for what is trivial about it. Wow: they point to a convenience copy on JzG must not have noticed. What would be a bombshell in that article is the stated assumption in the abstract:

In recent Fleischmann-Pons experiments carried out by different groups, a thermal signal is seen indicative of excess energy production of a magnitude much greater than can be accounted for by chemistry. Correlated with the excess heat appears to be 4He, with the associated energy near 24 MeV per helium atom.

Peer-reviewed reliable source in a mainstream multidisciplinary journal (then, it later narrowed the focus to life sciences).

[13] The Hagelstein paper submitted to the 2004 U.S. DoE review. Not peer-reviewed, though. Primary source for claims of a segment of the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science community.

[122] is the 2004 U.S DoE review report, misrepresented — or synthesized. The statement, however, is from the summary and was the opinion of the anonymous review author, based on some reviewer opinions.

From the review, listing the claims in the review submission:

1. “The existence of a physical effect that produces heat in metal deuterides. The heat is measured in quantities greatly exceeding all known chemical processes and the results are many times in excess of determined errors using several kinds of apparatus. In addition, the observations have been
reproduced, can be reproduced at will when the proper conditions are reproduced, and show the same patterns of behavior. Further, many of the reasons for failure to reproduce the heat effect have been discovered.”
2. “The production of 4He as an ash associated with this excess heat, in amounts commensurate with a reaction mechanism consistent with D+D -> 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat)”.

The second claim being considered is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, only a criticism of it. “Commensurate” is stronger than “correlated.” That is, not only is 4He correlated with heat (i.e., increases when heat increases, is not found when heat is not found), but the ratio found experimentally is consistent with the requirements of thermodynamics for deuterium conversion to helium. (Which might not be the reaction shown, but another which accomplishes that conversion). And then the review had:

The hypothesis that excess energy production in electrolytic cells is due to low energy nuclear reactions was tested in some experiments by looking for D + D fusion reaction products, in particular 4He, normally produced in about 1 in 10in hot D + D fusion reactions. Results reported in the review document purported to show that 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat.

Wait just a cotton-pickin’ moment!  That was a blatant error. It’s not what was in the document, they are referring to the Case Appendix, which mentions “sixteen cells” that were tested. But 8 of them were controls which were not expected to show either heat or helium. Unfortunately, the Case work was never published, I’ve been leaning on McKubre — gently! — to arrange its release, it was done for a governmental client. In any case, only five cells are reported in the Appendix, I forget the exact details, someone could look them up. A detailed heat report was only shown for one cell. There were not “sixteen cells reported to be producing excess heat.” And, as well, these were not electrolytic cells. Someone read quite carelessly. (One of the reviews made the heat error and I think the summarizing bureaucrat made the “electrolytic” error.) All of this shows that the review report itself was not carefully checked. Primary source, my opinion. It went on:

The detected 4He was typically very close to, but reportedly
above background levels.

Misleading and inaccurate. In two cells, helium levels rose above ambient, and showed no slowing as they reached ambient levels. In most 4He work, the helium levels are either below ambient (and ambient helium has been excluded) or in one case, which I cover in my 2015 review in Current Science (reliable source!) ambient helium was not excluded and the measured helium was an elevation above ambient.

This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some
reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause
for false positive results in some measurements.

That is a “possible cause” if one pays no attention to experimental details and the correlation, and if one believed the 5/16 claim, as one reviewer did, of course the “lack of consistency” would be an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. However, what is the hypothesis? The work was investigational, and the conclusion was that heat and helium were strongly correlated, and this was not based on Case, except a little. It was based on Miles, which the reviewers ignored, but who is featured in all reviews of the topic.

The correlation is covered in many, many reliable sources, but totally missing from the article, yet it is the strongest evidence for the nuclear nature of the heat effect called “cold fusion.” By far. All the rest is circumstantial and remains debatable for the most part. Garwin on input power and heat measurements: “They must be making some mistake.” Okay, it’s possible, but the “mistake” somehow creates a correlation with blinded measurements? I’ve said that if cold fusion was a treatment for heart disease, it would be standard of practice already, the evidence is that strong.

Remember, though, Wikipedia’s standard for inclusion is not “truth,” but verifiability in reliable sources, and for scientific articles, the gold standard is peer-reviewed and academic sources. Not editorial opinion about “mainstream views.” If a view is not mainstream, that can be stated, by showing a reliable source claiming it. All this can be verifiable if properly attributed.

But the faction actually censors and makes the subject obscure. This example makes that obvious. Continuing to look at the notes on what I quoted from the Wikipedia article:

[40] is an article from Scientific American in 1999: What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon?

Peter N. Saeta, an assistant professor of physics at Harvey Mudd College, responds:
Eight years ago researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, then both at the University of Utah, made headlines around the world with their claim to have achieved fusion in a simple tabletop apparatus working at room temperature. Other experimenters failed to replicate their work, however, and most of the scientific community no longer considers cold fusion a real phenomenon. Nevertheless, research continues, and a small but very vocal minority still believes in cold fusion.

Fuzzy in, fuzzy out. What did Fleischmann and Pons actually claim? “Fusion in a simple tabletop apparatus”? Not actually. They claimed evidence for an unknown nuclear reaction, and the apparatus only seemed simple. It was actually quite a difficult experiment. “Other experimenters failed to replicate their work” was false, if taken as excluding confirmation, the reported effect was eventually confirmed by many, the idea of general failure was obviously based on early difficulties in replication.

The statement about “most of the scientific community” was true for 1999 and may still be true. What does “believes in cold fusion” mean? Is cold fusion a religion? The question was about “current scientific thinking,” but it is asked as if there is some authority, when, in fact, scientific opinion can vary widely. “Very vocal” is a tad, ah, judgmental. People who are working on something may be enthusiastic about it. Is that a problem? I will quote the skeptical inquirer Nate Hoffman from Dialog (1995):

YS: I guess the real question has to be this: Is the heat real?

OM: The simple facts are as follows: Scientists experienced in the area of calorimetric measurements are performing these experiments. Long periods occur with no heat production, and then, occasionally, periods suddenly occur with apparent heat production. These scientists become irate when so-called experts call them charlatans. The occasions when apparent heat appears seem to be highly sensitive to the surface conditions of the palladium and are not reproducible at will.

YS: Any phenomenon that is not reproducible at will is most likely not real.

OM: People in the San Fernando Valley, Japanese, Columbians, et al, will be glad to hear that earthquakes are not real.

YS: Ouch. I deserved that. My comment was stupid.

OM: A large number of people who should know better have parroted that inane statement….

The Scientific American article then presents Michael Schaffer. He is clearly at least somewhat knowledgeable, but he’s also sloppy. Nevertheless, he comes to a reasonable conclusion:

“So, what is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Frankly, most scientists have not followed the field since the disenchantment of 1989 and 1990. They typically still dismiss cold fusion as experimental error, but most of them are unaware of the newly reported results. Even so, given the extraordinary nature of the claimed cold fusion results, it will take extraordinarily high quality, conclusive data to convince most scientists, unless a compelling theoretical explanation is found first.”

He is talking about the political situation. He obviously thinks that something might be valid. However, he does not mention the strongest evidence that the heat effect is nuclear in nature, the heat/helium correlation. He merely points out what is not controversial, that the ordinary d-d fusion reaction only very rarely produces helium and when it does, it will always produce (must produce) a gamma ray. It is not clear that Schaffer realizes that the reaction might not be “d-d.” The lack of gammas strongly indicates that. But what I find of interest in his comment is the description of the position of “most scientists.” Is this “reliable source”? Obviously, the editors think it is for the comment about gammas. What about the ignorance of most scientists on the “newly reported results”?

A “compelling theoretical explanation” is quite unlikely at this point. Many have attempted to come up with one. Most theories conflict with the experimental evidence, so are not complete even if valid, i.e., there would be details to be worked out. Some theories replace one mystery with another, i.e., cold fusion is a mystery but what is known does not actually contradict known physics, it is merely unexpected, something yet to be understood. The theory that most closely attempts to explain experimental results would require a massive revision of basic nuclear physics, but without the specific experimental evidence that would justify this.

However, as to a scientific examination, the heat/helium correlation hypothesis is testable. In addition to having been confirmed widely, there is a project under way to confirm it with increased precision, and I hope and expect that there will be results in “not long.” Which could still be some years. My concern here is simply that there is extensive coverage of the heat/helium correlation in reliable source, the earliest I know of would be Huizenga, Fiasco, 1993 (2nd edition), yet it is still entirely missing from the article, almost 25 years later. This is not “recentism.”

The rest of the Scientific American article is pseudoskeptical bullshit, mostly scientifically irrelevant. I have sometimes considered writing a detailed review of that whole article, but … so much bullshit, so little time. (Morrison also did debate Pons and Fleischmann in a journal, and we are reviewing that elsewhere on this site. In that environment, he was more careful. What the other respondent wrote could not have been published in a scientific journal … but Scientific American published it…. so much for them. There was no thorough analysis of the topic, it was almost entirely opinion.

Phlogiston theory is covered better than cold fusion.

Completing the notes to that quoted section of the Wikipedia article:

40. The 2004 U.S. DoE report, again, which is reporting the “most negative” individual reviews. The argument of leakage is an obvious possible artifact with helium measurements at the low levels that would be expected if helium is the source of the reported heat (as helium production from deuterium is very energetic). The objection completely neglects the correlation and the actual experimental behavior.

[The review report was itself not subject to peer review, it was political. It actually shows a sea change in thinking from the 1989 review, but … attempts to insert fact from the review that could show this was always reverted. Instead, superficial comment from the review that is easily misunderstood was used. There was massive revert warring over this, over the years (before I was ever involved).  Is this still the condition of the article? Yes. The 1989 review is presented this way:

In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion.

That is easily verifiable from the primary source, the 1989 review. It is also misleading. First of all, the 1989 review was rushed, and the conclusions based on almost complete replication failure in the early efforts. Of course those reported results “did not present convincing evidence”! Further, the concern was “useful source of energy,” and there are still no such results, only indications of possibility, certainly not “convincing evidence,” enough to justify the charge to the panel, should there be a massive, heavily funded project? No, there shouldn’t have been, and still should not be. Not yet. Rather, the panel did recommend further research “under existing programs.”

A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]

And on that point, (a massive or special program) the 2004 review conclusion was “similar” as in 1989, and said so, and that is also my conclusion, with much more thorough knowledge of the evidence than they were able to gain in the short review process. Rather, the panel again recommended further research– unanimously this time (the 1989 recommendation was actually forced by the threatened resignation of the Nobelist co-chair if it was not included, along with other language noting doubt, not certain rejection) further research. What was missing from that summary of “similar” was that what they report from 1989, about the lack of “convincing evidence” was definitely not the conclusion of the 2004 panel. Yet the way the reports are presented in the article matches the common opinion of skeptics on this: that the 2004 report also rejected cold fusion, and that there is no decent evidence for it. There is language in the summary of the report that shows the contrary; the panel was divided, which actually is a better reflection of “emerging science” rather than “fringe.” Given the very strong general negative opinion of cold fusion, some reviewers were apparently predisposed to misread the evidence, as can be seen in the individual reports (and then reflected in the summary). I never attempted to state this in the article, because it is “original research,”  though it is easily verifiable in the primary source, the review submission and report.

123. Rogers, Vern C.; Sandquist, Gary M. (December 1990), “Cold fusion reaction products and their measurement”Journal of Fusion Energy9 (4): 483–485, Bibcode:1990JFuE….9..483Rdoi:10.1007/BF01588284

The abstract is at the linked URL. From the first words of the article:

Ambient or cold fusion of deuterium is postulated to occur when two deuterium nuclei in a palladium or titanium metal lattice with ambient kinetic energy quantum mechanically tunnel through their mutual coulombic charge barrier and undergo one or more of the following
nuclear fusion reactions.

It is not controversial that gammas are not observed. The article examines the proposal (“postulated to occur.”) By whom? The reactions listed are the three known d-d fusion branches, and it was obvious from the original Pons and Fleischmann paper that these were not the main reaction, and what they presented showing that the might be happening at low levels was either artifact (neutron measurements) or weak (tritium and helium, as of that time). The article wastes a lot of space on what is completely not controversial: the absence of any product other than helium at significant levels. Is this the best source for that? Perhaps. They use the source to show “no gammas.” Right. No gammas, at least not high-energy gammas. There is later work reviewing this issue in more detail and with more experimental history, this was 1990.

124. This is Simons, Undead Science, p. 215. He is actually studying the sociology of cold fusion and the rejection. Simon is cited for “X-rays, helium, neutrons.” To repeat the quotation:

Cold fusion researchers have since claimed to find X-rays, helium, neutrons[124] and nuclear transmutations.[125] Some researchers also claim to have found them using only light water and nickel cathodes.[124] 

Now, due weight. What are the “main claims”? What has the most reliable source? Further, there are claims of major effects, correlated (and also with correlated causal conditions), and claims of minor effects, not correlated. The article mashes all this together. There are indeed persistent reports of X-rays, , but with no particular coherence or consistency across multiple researchers. Likewise neutrons have been reported, with the strongest report, least likely to be some artifact, being more recent than Simon, so why is Simon cited? And the levels of neutrons reported are only slightly above background, with the relationship to the primary reaction (primary symptom: heat) being quite obscure.

This was “passing mention,” by a sociologist and it contains no detail or references. It is quite unspecific. They are avoiding citing peer-reviewed reviews, which do cover all this with far more detail.

p. 215 in Simon mentions light water reports (mostly heat and tritium). This is all vague and not clearly confirmed, unlike the primary findings: heat from palladium deuteride, and correlated helium. There is no balance, in spite of the existence of peer-reviewed reviews of the field that cover these issues in detail.

The sentence makes it seem as if helium were found in light water experiments. No, helium has not been so reported. Light water or light hydrogen have been used in control experiments. If there are light water reactions, they are largely unconfirmed. Light water has been used as a control in heat/helium studies. No helium from PdH. (Storms has theorized that light water LENR would produce deuterium, which would be very difficult to measure.) What Simon actually says is:

The most startling of these are reports of the measurement of excess heat and nuclear particles (mostly tritium) using light-water based electrolytes with nickel cathodes, as opposed to heavy water and palladium.

So not helium and not transmutations other than to tritium. Poor sourcing. And these editors don’t actually sit down and read Simon; rather they grab snippets from Google Books. Simons reports much on the sociology of high interest, but the faction just cherry-picks what tells the story they want to tell.

125. Simon again, 150–153, 162. Mysteries abound in cold fusion research and Simon is aware of it. What is reported by “most cold fusion researchers” and what is reported by only a few, inconsistently? Again, the article mashes all this together, an inconsistent collection of artifacts generated by confirmation bias.

The Wikipedia editorial process encourages sentence-by-sentence, line by line, point by point “negotiation” of article content. It is extremely difficult to generate an article with overall balance, because of how the work proceeds.

Ironically, it was Science Apologist who demonstrated another approach. While he was site-banned, for a time, from his disruptive editing, he used the time to create an article on Optics, in his user space on Wikisource. I don’t know why he didn’t use Wikiversity, it would have been ideal for that. What he wrote was judged better than the standing Wikipedia article, and it was then RfC’d to replace the existing mess in one edit. I supported that move. See the discussion. It was all much more complicated than necessary. Really, there would have been a binary choice to make, which article is better? (Not “perfect.” Just a comparison!) (The author being banned was actually irrelevant, the content was released under the standard WMF license, but some argued “meat puppetry.” An opinion that an article written by X is better than the articles written by a farrago of users, erratically, is not “meat puppetry,” and if there is consensus for a substitution, that is it, as to my understanding of Wikipedia process. ArbComm apparently explicitly approved what should really have been obvious.) I am not aware of any other example of this being done. Nor have I found much interest in doing it. People would rather fight than switch. And writing an article on a topic as complex as cold fusion is actually a lot of work. And nobody is being paid to do it.

Many hands make short work, so if that were to be done for cold fusion, it would take collaboration, which has never appeared, in spite of opportunities.



SOS Wikipedia

Original post

I’ve been working on some studies that involve a lot of looking at Wikipedia, and I come across the Same Old S … ah, Stuff! Yeah! Stuff!

Wikipedia has absolutely wonderful policies that are not worth the paper they are not written on, because what actually matters is enforcement. If you push a point of view considered fringe by the administrative cabal (Jimbo’s word for what he created … but shhhh! Don’t write the word on Wikipedia, the sky will fall!) you are in for some, ah, enforcement. But if you have and push a clear anti-fringe point of view — which is quite distinct from neutrally insisting on policy — nothing will happen, unless you go beyond limits, in which case you might even get blocked until your friends bail you out, as happened with jps, mentioned below. Way beyond limits.

So an example pushed against my eyeballs today. It’s not about cold fusion, but it shows the thinking of an administrator (JzG is the account but he signs “Guy”) and a user (the former Science Apologist, who has a deliberately unpronounceable username but who signs jps (those were his real-life initials), who were prominent in establishing the very iffy state of Cold fusion.


Aron K. Barbey ‎[edit]

Before looking at what JzG (Guy) and UnpronounceableUsername (jps) wrote, what happened here? What is the state of the article and the user?

First thing I find is that Aron barbey wrote the article and has almost no other edits. However, he wrote the article on Articles for creation. Looking at his user talk page, I find

16 July 2012, Barbey was warned about writing an article about himself, by a user declining a first article creation submission.

9 July 2014, it appears that Aron barbey created a version of the article at Articles for Creation. That day, he was politely and properly warned about conflict of interest.

The article was declined, see 00:43:46, 9 July 2014 review of submission by Aron barbey

from the log found there:

It appears that the article was actually originally written by Barbey in 2012. See this early copy, and logs for that page.

Barbey continued to work on his article in the new location, and resubmitted it August 2, 2014

It was accepted August 14, 2014.  and moved to mainspace.

Now, the article itself. It has not been written or improved by someone with a clue as to what Wikipedia articles need. As it stands, it will not withstand a Articles for deletion request. The problem is that there are few, if any, reliable secondary sources. Over three years after the article was accepted, JzG multiply issue-tagged it. Those tags are correct. There are those problems, some minor, some major. However, this edit was appalling, and the problem shows up in the FTN filing.

The problems with the article would properly suggest AfD if they cannot be resolved. So why did JzG go to FTN? What is the “Fringe Theory” involved? He would go there for  one reason: on that page the problems with this article can be seen by anti-fringe users, who may then either sit on the article to support what JzG is doing, or vote for deletion with opinions warped by claims of “fringe,” which actually should be irrelevant. The issue, by policy would be the existence of reliable secondary sources. If there are not enough, then deletion is appropriate, fringe or not fringe.

So his filing:

The article on Aron Barbey is an obvious autobiography, edited by himself and IP addresses from his university. The only other edits have been removing obvious puffery – and even then, there’s precious little else in the article. What caught my eye is the fact that he’s associated with a Frontiers journal, and promulgates a field called “Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience”, which was linked in his autobiography not to a Wikipedia article but to a journal article in Frontiers. Virtually all the cites in the article are primary references to his won work, and most of those are in the Frontiers journal he edits. Which is a massive red flag.

Who edited the article is a problem, but the identity of editors is not actually relevant to Keep/Delete and content. Or it shouldn’t be. In reality, those arguments often prevail. If an edit is made in conflict of interest, it can be reverted. But … what is the problem with that journal? JzG removed the link and explanation. For Wikipedia Reliable Source, the relevant fact is the publisher. But I have seen JzG and jps arguing that something is not reliable source because the author had fringe opinions — in their opinion!

What JzG removed:

15:48, 15 December 2017‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,241 bytes) (-901)‎  . (remove links to crank journal) (undo)

This took out this link:

Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience

and removed what could show that the journal is not “crank.” There is a better source (showing that the editors of the article didn’t know what they were doing). Nature Publishing Group press release. This “crank journal” is Reliable Source for Wikipedia, and that is quite clear. (However, there are some problems with all this, complexities. POV-pushing confuses the issues, it doesn’t resolve them.

Aron Barbey is Associate Editor of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Nature Publishing Group journal.[14] Barbey is also on the Editorial Board of NeuroImage,[15] Intelligence,[16] and Thinking & Reasoning,.[17]

Is Barbey an “Associate Editor”? This is the journal home page.

Yes, Barbie is an Associate Editor. There are two Chief Editors. A journal will choose a specialist in the field, to participate in the selection and review of articles, so this indicates some notability, but is a primary source.

And JzG mangled:

Barbey is known for helping to establish the field of Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience.[36]

was changed to this:

Barbey is known for helping to establish the field of Cognitive Neuroscience.[35]

JzG continues on FTN:

So, I suspect we have a woo-monger here, but I don’t know whether the article needs to be nuked, or expanded to cover reality-based critique, if any exists. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

“Woo” is a term used by “skeptic” organizations. “Woo-monger” is uncivil, for sure. As well, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not “reality-based” but “verifiable in reliable source.” “Critique” assumes that what Barbey is doing is controversial, and Guy has found no evidence for that other than his own knee-jerk responses to the names of things.

It may be that the article needs to be deleted. It certainly needs to be improved. However, what is obvious is that JzG is not at all shy about displaying blatant bias, and insulting an academic and an academic journal.

And jps does quite the same:

This is borderline Men who stare at goats sort of research (not quite as bad as that, but following the tradition) that the US government pushes around. Nutriceuticals? That’s very dodgy. Still, the guy’s won millions of dollars to study this stuff. Makes me think a bit less of IARPA. jps (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This does not even remotely resemble that Army paranormal research, but referring to that project is routine for pseudosceptics whenever there is government support of anything they consider fringe. Does nutrition have any effect on intelligence? Is the effect of nutrition on intelligence of any interest? Apparently, not for these guys. No wonder they are as they are. Not enough kale (or, more accurately, not enough nutritional research, which is what this fellow is doing.)

This is all about warping Wikipedia toward an extreme Skeptical Point of View. This is not about improving the article, or deleting it for lack of reliable secondary sources. It’s about fighting woo and other evils.

In editing the article, JzG used these edit summaries:

  • (remove links to crank journal)
  • (rm. vanispamcruft)
  • (Selected publications: Selected by Barbey, usually published by his own journal. Let’s see if anyone else selects them)
  • (Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Enhance Human Intelligence: Oh good, they are going to be fad diet sellers too)

This are all uncivil (the least uncivil would be the removal of publications, but it has no basis. JzG has no idea of what would be notable and what not.

The journal is not “his own journal.” He is merely an Associate Editor, selected for expertise. He would not be involved in selecting his own article to publish. I’ve been through this with jps, actually, where Ed Storms was a consulting editor for Naturwissenschaften and the claim was made that he had approved his own article, a major peer-reviewed review of cold fusion, still not used in the article. Yet I helped with the writing of that article and Storms had to go through ordinary peer review. The faction makes up arguments like this all the time.

I saw this happen again and again: an academic edits Wikipedia, in his field. He is not welcomed and guided to support Wikipedia editorial policy. He is, instead, attacked and insulted. Ultimately, if he is not blocked, he goes away and the opinion grows in academia that Wikipedia is hopeless. I have no idea, so far, if this neuroscientist is notable by Wikipedia standards, but he is definitely a real neuroscientist, and being treated as he is being treated is utterly unnecessary. But JzG has done this for years.

Once upon a time, when I saw an article like this up for Deletion, I might stub it, reducing the article to just what is in the strongest sources, which a new editor without experience may not recognize. Later, if the article survives the AfD discussion, more can be added from weaker sources, including some primary sources, if it’s not controversial. If the article isn’t going to survive AfD, I’d move it to user space, pending finding better sources. (I moved a fair number of articles to my own user space so they could be worked on. Those were deleted at the motion of …. JzG.)

(One of the problems with AfD is that if an article is facing deletion, it can be a lot of work to find proper sources. I did the work on some occasions, and the article was deleted anyway, because there had been so many delete !votes (Wikipedia pretends it doesn’t vote, one of the ways the community lies to itself.  before the article was improved, and people don’t come back and reconsider, usually. That’s all part of Wikipedia structural dysfunction. Wasted work. Hardly anyone cares.)

Sources on Barbey

Barbey and friends may be aware of sources not easily found on the internet. Any newspaper will generally be a reliable source. If Barbey’s work is covered in a book that is not internet-searchable, it may be reliable source. Sourcing for the biography should be coverage of Barbey and/or Barbey’s work, attributed to him, and not merely passing mention. Primary sources (such as his university web site) are inadequate. If there were an article on him in the journal where he is Associate Editor, it would probably qualify (because he would not be making the editorial decision on that). If he is the publisher, or he controls the publisher, it would not qualify.

Reliable independent sources
  • BRADLEY CORNELIUS “Dr. Aron Barbey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – Emotional Intelligence  APR 27, 2013
  • 2013 Carle Research Institute Awards October 2013, Research Newsletter. Singles out a paper for recognition, “Nutrient Biomarker Patterns, Cognitive Function, and MRI Measures of Brain Aging,” however, I found a paper by that title and Barbey is not listed as an author, nor could I find a connection with Barbey.
  • SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE David Noonan, “How to Plug In Your Brain” MAY 2016
  • The New Yorker.  Emily Anthes  “Vietnam’s Neuroscientific Legacy” October 2, 2014 PASSING MENTION
  • Liz Ahlberg Touchstone “Cognitive cross-training enhances learning, study finds” July 25, 2017

“Aron Barbey, a professor of psychology” (reliable sources make mistakes) Cites a study, the largest and most comprehensive to date, … published in the journal Scientific Reports. N. Ward et al, Enhanced Learning through Multimodal Training: Evidence from a Comprehensive Cognitive, Physical Fitness, and Neuroscience Intervention, Scientific Reports (2017).
The error indicates to me that this was actually written by Touchstone, based on information provided by the University of Illinois, not merely copied from that.

Iffy but maybe

My sense is that continued search could find much more. Barbey is apparently a mainstream neuroscientist, with some level of recognition. His article needs work by an experienced Wikipedian.

Notes for Wikipedians

An IP editor appeared in the Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion pointing to this CFC post:

Abd is stalking and attacking you both on his blog [25] in regard to Aron Barbey. He has done the same on about 5 other articles of his. [26]. He was banned on Wikipedia yet he is still active on Wiki-media projects. Can this guy get banned for this? The Wikimedia foundation should be informed about his harassment. (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This behavior is clearly of the sock family, called Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, and when I discovered the massive damage that this family had done, I verified the most recent activity with stewards (many accounts were locked and IPs blocked) and I have continued documentation, which Wikipedia may use or not, as it chooses. It is all verifiable. This IP comment was completely irrelevant to the FTN discussion, but attempting to turn every conversation into an attack on favorite targets is common AP sock behavior. For prior edits in this sequence, see (from the meta documentation):

This new account is not an open proxy. However, I will file a request anyway, because the behavior is so clear, following up on the activity.

I have private technical evidence that this is indeed the same account or strongly related to Anglo Pyramidologist, see the Wikipedia SPI.

(I have found other socks, some blocked, not included in that archive.)

I have also been compiling obvious socks and reasonable suspicions from RationalWiki, for this same user or set of users, after he created a revenge article there on me (as he had previously done with many others).  It’s funny that he is claiming stalking. He has obviously been stalking, finding quite obscure pages and now giving them much more publicity.

And I see that there is now more sock editing on RationalWiki, new accounts with nothing better to do than document that famous troll or pseudoscientist or anti-skeptic (none of which I am but this is precisely what they claim.) Thanks for the incoming links. Every little bit helps.

If anyone thinks that there is private information in posts that should not ethically be revealed, please contact me through my WMF email, it works. Comments are also open on this blog, and corrections are welcome.

On the actual topic of that FTN discussion, the Aron Barbey article (with whom I have absolutely no connection), I have found better sources and my guess is that there are even better ones available.

JzG weighs in

Nobody is surprised. Abd is obsessive. He even got banned from RationalWiki because they got bored with him. Not seeing any evidence of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry here though. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a blog I started and run, I have control. Guy behaves as if the Fringe Theories Noticeboard is his personal blog, where he can insult others without any necessity, including scientists like Barbey and a writer like me. And he lies. I cannot correct JzG’s lies on Wikipedia, but I can do it here.

I am not “banned” from RationalWiki. I was blocked by a sock of the massively disruptive user who I had been documenting, on meta for the WMF, on RationalWiki and on my blog when that was deleted by the same sock. The stated cause of the block was not “boring,” though they do that on RW. It was “doxxing.” As JzG should know, connecting accounts is not “doxxing.” It is revelation of real names for accounts that have not freely revealed that, or personal identification, like place of employment.

“Not seeing any evidence of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry here.” Really? That IP is obviously the same user as behind the globally blocked Anglo Pyramidologist pushing the same agenda, this time with, likely, a local cell phone provide (because the geolocation matches know AP location), whereas with the other socking, documented above, was with open proxies.)

Properly, that IP should have been blocked and the edits reverted as vandalism. But JzG likes attack dogs. They are useful for his purposes.

Joshua P. Schroeder on Cold fusion

This compiles all edits of JPS to the Wikipedia article on cold fusion as of December 10, 2017. Commentary will be added.

I decided to take a look at JPS’ involvement in the history of the cold fusion article. I had never before done this. He was not heavily involved when I was working on the article, and for some of the time since then he was banned from all fringe science articles and then site-banned. His block log is one of the longer ones I have seen. Most editors with a block log like this are toast. He was site banned January 21, 2011. He was unbanned in 2013 per a rather contentious discussion on the Administrator’s Noticeboard.

Researching the Wikipedia history of JPS has been made complicated by evasive measures, which I noted years ago. A list of accounts is on this subpage. SPI investigations, ArbComm cases, and Noticeboard filings appear under the account names at the time. Contributions change to the new name. So if one looks at an old diff, one will find the new account name. That is largely how I found them. Old accounts can be found by finding a signed comment on a Talk page or Noticeboard in the new contributions.

I will analyze all this later. I was surprised to see how much he had edited the Cold fusion article, however, and surprised to see his history of revert warring and defiance of administrators, even attacking at least one in an edit summary. But I have not looked at the situations yet. I will also add his Talk cold fusion edits and possibly some others relating to cold fusion. I worked collaboratively with him as Science Apologist on at least one article and and supported the transwiki of an improved article on optics. He is knowledgeable about physics. He was also openly defiant of Wikipedia policies and consensus process, I can see that from just skimming over the edit summaries, and he was clearly pushing a point of view, selectively.

This goes far back and older edits may not fairly represent his current positions or behavior.

I will cover arguments jps has presented on the subpage, Arguments. I will also cover, there, arguments used by known or suspected sock puppets, such as

“Courtesy blanking” of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive

See also blanked archives listed under :  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist

(notice that the user link on the master page displays: “This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn’t here for privacy/harassment issues. Dreadstar 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)”). The  log for that page.

The effect is that if the new account engages in old disruptive behavior, finding the old behavior is quite difficult and tedious, and “tedious” usually means, in a wiki, it simply is not done. Before jps was unbanned, a study would properly have been done by a neutral user (or at least a study should have been done and then reviewed and corrected or redacted by a neutral user. This obviously was not done, and in the jps unban discussion, there was extensive ignorance among those voting. (They call it “not-voting,” one of the lies the Wikipedia community tells itself. Some participants in that discussion were attacked because they had a history of dispute with jps, but users with a history of supporting his disruptive behavior were given a pass. This is how the wiki goes south. History is not studied, the community is often actively hostile to it.)

I’d say any other user doing that would be reverted and warned and possibly blocked. jps was heavily enabled to cover his tracks, making researching his behavior difficult. (This shows up in some reports.) If a user had reformed, demonstrating that by an extensive no-problem history, blanking will sometimes be done. When a page is blanked, content will not be displayed or found in searches. However, the page can be read from history. But the decision to do that should be made by a responsible administrator. jps blanked his own investigations. In fact, jps continued much the same behavior. As pointed out in the unban discussion, many of his “enemies” had been blocked themselves. Of course! They didn’t have an administrative faction backing them up! What they were blocked for was often trivial compared to what jps often did. I was not carrying this around in my mind. This is all coming back because I was led to look at it again by the activity of the Anglo Pyramidologist socks. (They are also motivating me to look at other users who they “defend,” even though they were not attacked), and then jps was hostile in response to my attempts to engage him in cooperation in getting “doxxing” removed. Doxxing that his “friend” archived in an attempt to attack me.

Here is what jps’ renamings did: Arbitration Enforcement. Click on links for the named user. “This account is not registered.” Normally, when a user account is renamed, there is a redirect from the old account. Exceptions can be made for harassment; but normal user history research is considered important. jps has repeatedly been protected by Wikipedia admins. I will document this elsewhere. Why is jps “harassed”? I have not harassed him, I have documented his arguments and behavior, with evidence. Someone else might use this to harass him. Harassment is illegal and should be prosecuted. But ordinary skeptics and neutral Wikipedia administrators do not ordinarily attract harassment. jps would be a target because he really did attack others, my impression so far.

See other blanked archives under the master page:





This was fourth report, a pile of IPs with highly suspicious edits, was considered obviously DepartedUser, a sock of Hipocrite, supporting  the revert warring of jps. Hipocrite, in this was acting as a meat puppet. Later, Hipocrite created massive disruption by directly, himself, revert warring on cold fusion. Had I known this, then, I would have absolutely insisted that he be included as involved in my second ArbCom case. Instead, William M. Connoley revert warred to protect Hipocrite. That user also closely collaborated with jps to attack ArbComm sanctions, in a 2009 sequence that led to a site ban for jps. This is for reference for future research on how structural dysfunction allows certain abusers to escape consequences.

So admins were looking at a case of tag-team revert warring, and other highly disruptive edits, using IP to disguise identity, [see “(4th)”] and it was ignored because, after all, it wasn’t jps!  “DepartedUser” did not depart.

The Cold fusion edits of the user now known as ජපස

(when an account is renamed, history then shows the new name, not the name at the time. However, any old signatures will not be changed.)

  1. (cur | prev) 03:38, 30 October 2017‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (132,985 bytes) (-105)‎ . . (Undid revision 807780097 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) just because it is a quote doesn’t mean it needs to be included. It’s misleading divorced from context.) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 23:21, 27 October 2017‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (132,985 bytes) (-105)‎ . . (Undid revision 720982924 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) hmmm… this looks like WP:ACTIVIST editing to me.) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 16:24, 7 September 2015ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,072 bytes) (-2,057). . (Reverted to revision 678269951 by JzG (talk): Remove Rossi ballyhooing. (TW)) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 17:02, 14 February 2015ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,437 bytes) (+11). . (top: there are a number of house-journals that CF-proponents publish with claimed editorial control, but the problem is one of mainstream acceptance.) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 21:25, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,519 bytes) (+924). . (Setup of experiments: intro to subsubsections per WP:MOS) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 21:06, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,595 bytes) (+315). . (Criticism: summary of the subsequent subsections per WP:MOS) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 21:01, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,280 bytes) (+20). . (Publications: reorganize to make this make a bit more sense.) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 15:47, 4 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,260 bytes) (+19). . (Incompatibilities with known fusion reactions: wording) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 15:45, 4 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,241 bytes) (+3). . (Incompatibilities with conventional fusion: there is no such thing as “unconventional” fusion, really. It’s either known or unknown fusion reactions.) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 17:27, 24 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,373 bytes) (-426). . (Italy: Removing E-CAT per talk.) (undo)
  11. (cur | prev) 11:30, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,799 bytes) (+35). . (Disambiguated: Department of EnergyUnited States Department of Energy) (undo)
  12. (cur | prev) 02:52, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,764 bytes) (-77). . (Italy: chronologize) (undo)
  13. (cur | prev) 01:46, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,841 bytes) (-3). . (Subsequent research: grammar) (undo)
  14. (cur | prev) 01:44, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (132,844 bytes) (+6). . (United States: acronym) (undo)
  15. (cur | prev) 01:43, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,838 bytes) (+6). . (United States: make right the words) (undo)
  16. (cur | prev) 01:41, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,832 bytes) (-71). . (United States: remove chaff) (undo)
  17. (cur | prev) 01:40, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,903 bytes) (-129). . (History: recombine. We shouldn’t talk about the same thing twice if we can help it.) (undo)
  18. (cur | prev) 01:34, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,032 bytes) (-16). . (Subsequent research: wording cleanup) (undo)
  19. (cur | prev) 01:32, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (133,048 bytes) (-1). . (Subsequent research: -sp) (undo)
  20. (cur | prev) 01:31, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,049 bytes) (+1,830). . (Subsequent research: reorganizing to group similar thoughts and ideas.) (undo)
  21. (cur | prev) 01:26, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (131,219 bytes) (-1,929). . (Further reviews and funding issues: Move up….) (undo)
  22. (cur | prev) 01:23, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,148 bytes) (+35). . (Conferences) (undo)
  23. (cur | prev) 00:15, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,113 bytes) (+79). . (Subsequent research: sectioning) (undo)
  24. (cur | prev) 00:04, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,034 bytes) (+124). . (Subsequent research: reorganize: US, Italy, Japan, India.) (undo)
  25. (cur | prev) 20:02, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (134,113 bytes) (-922). . (Further reviews and funding issues: clean up. Lots of stuff gets splattered onto this page, doesn’t it? Keep the sources good, please (Al Gore, not really a good source).) (undo)
  26. (cur | prev) 11:55, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (135,035 bytes) (-908). . (DOE ARPA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA): WAAY over weighted. Forbes employs a cold fusion enthusiast who has over-interpreted a single figure in one document. Compare to the nonsense about “NASA endorses cold fusion” 2 yrs ago) (undo)
  27. (cur | prev) 11:51, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (135,943 bytes) (-1,632). . (removing some unduly weighted commentary per WP:LEDE and one originally researched claim (made on the basis of mention in a SINGLE figure).) (undo)
  28. (cur | prev) 14:28, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,349 bytes) (+1). . (undo)
  29. (cur | prev) 14:27, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,348 bytes) (+53). . (undo)
  30. (cur | prev) 04:34, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,273 bytes) (-28). . (History: unnecessary section) (undo)
  31. (cur | prev) 02:30, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,301 bytes) (+9). . (month is somewhat important.) (undo)
  32. (cur | prev) 02:24, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (98,292 bytes) (+1). . (Ongoing work: fix cite…) (undo)
  33. (cur | prev) 02:22, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,291 bytes) (-200). . (some fixes to the lead…) (undo)
  34. (cur | prev) 02:05, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,491 bytes) (+232). . (Further studies: add a connector sentence and a year.) (undo)
  35. (cur | prev) 01:57, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,259 bytes) (+7). . (Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons: smallify) (undo)
  36. (cur | prev) 01:56, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,252 bytes) (+174). . (Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons: belongs here if anywhere.) (undo)
  37. (cur | prev) 01:55, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,078 bytes) (+1,097). . ({{anchor|Fleischmann-Pons experiment}}Fleischmann–Pons experiment: altering…) (undo)
  38. (cur | prev) 01:24, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (96,981 bytes) (0). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: sup on the inside.) (undo)
  39. (cur | prev) 01:23, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (96,981 bytes) (+2). . (Unlikelihood of fusion) (undo)
  40. (cur | prev) 01:22, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,979 bytes) (+182). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: some links that may be helpful.) (undo)
  41. (cur | prev) 01:11, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,797 bytes) (+237). . (Explanations: fix this first paragraph to be more explanatory of the situation.) (undo)
  42. (cur | prev) 00:49, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,560 bytes) (+6). . (Nuclear fusion and subsequent proponent proposals: separate these paragraphs differently….) (undo)
  43. (cur | prev) 00:47, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,554 bytes) (+297). . (Explanations: making this a separate section for ease of navigation.) (undo)
  44. (cur | prev) 00:36, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,257 bytes) (-30). . (Bibliography: he has no article.) (undo)
  45. (cur | prev) 00:27, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,287 bytes) (+22). . (Explanations: tightening this section…) (undo)
  46. (cur | prev) 00:14, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,265 bytes) (+121). . (Explanations: this is a bit more in-tune with the way this subject goes….) (undo)
  47. (cur | prev) 00:00, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,144 bytes) (+94). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: make explicit what’s decaying for the people who aren’t skilled at jargon reading.) (undo)
  48. (cur | prev) 23:59, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,050 bytes) (+11). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: superscript.) (undo)
  49. (cur | prev) 23:58, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,039 bytes) (-54). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: this article needs fixing, but I think this is the right link.) (undo)
  50. (cur | prev) 23:50, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,093 bytes) (+55). . (Conferences: more fixes… attribute an opinion to the person making the opinion.) (undo)
  51. (cur | prev) 23:46, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,038 bytes) (-2). . (Conferences: tightening this section.) (undo)
  52. (cur | prev) 23:36, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,040 bytes) (+2). . (Explanations: not need for “all”.) (undo)
  53. (cur | prev) 23:35, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,038 bytes) (+24). . (Explanations) (undo)
  54. (cur | prev) 23:33, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,014 bytes) (+52). . (Explanations: read for yourself.) (undo)
  55. (cur | prev) 23:31, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,962 bytes) (-11). . (Explanations: overkill) (undo)
  56. (cur | prev) 23:31, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,973 bytes) (-18). . (Comparison with known features of fusion: shorter and sweeter?) (undo)
  57. (cur | prev) 23:30, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,991 bytes) (+5). . (Comparison with conventional fusion: better wording?) (undo)
  58. (cur | prev) 23:29, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,986 bytes) (+17). . (Helium and neutrons: heavy elements too.) (undo)
  59. (cur | prev) 17:37, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,960 bytes) (+1). . (Explanations: as of is misleading… tweaking) (undo)
  60. (cur | prev) 17:34, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,959 bytes) (-4). . (Explanations: this is a better way of summarizing the state.) (undo)
  61. (cur | prev) 17:26, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,963 bytes) (-101). . (Comparison with conventional fusion: no need to sub-sub-sub section.) (undo)
  62. (cur | prev) 20:24, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,850 bytes) (-33). . (Novel physics: removing contentious claim. Newscientist could have easily gotten it wrong.) (undo)
  63. (cur | prev) 20:18, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk |