Essentially, if we assume that he is sane, the man lies.
Shortly before he sent this mail, he deleted a comment of mine from his talk
page, in which I pointed out that what he told another Wikiversity user about
me.
https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=next&oldid=1128082
In that comment, I pointed to the actual Wikipedia ban discussion, the close of
which does not mention pushing fringe beliefs. Nor was that mentioned in the
close of my previous cold fusion topic ban. The cause stated there was my
request for a removal of a web site that hosts legal preprints of cold fusion
research papers from the global blacklist. That request had began very simply,
but when the WP admin who had originally requested the blacklisting raised all
the old, rejected arguments (he had been reprimanded by ArbComm for his admin
actions around this), I then explained, and that was considered a "wall of
text." I was topic banned on Wikipedia as a result. And then, because what I'd
written was convincing, the blacklisting was lifted.
But all the old charges came out in the ban discussion, as if they had all been
confirmed, they were simply stated as fact, and Wikipedians do not research
disputes, they simply react. It was claimed that I'd violated an ArbComm
sanction by socking. No, I was under no ArbComm sanction, the topic ban was a
"community ban," resulting from that meta action. "Violating an ArbComm
sanction" was then repeated by many !voting for ban as cause.
Wikipedia does dumb stuff like this all the time! I found that when I took the
place seriously, I'd quickly become "obsessed." I concluded the place was
utterly unreliable, not a place to do any serious work with anything remotely
controversial.
As to "trying to profit" by selling "information packages" to people,. I have a
COI notice on the Wikiversity Cold fusion resource page. I'm not selling
information or information packages, I'm selling physical materials that can be
used to replicate certain interesting experiments, in particular one that
appears, from peer reviewed journal publications, to produce a few neutrons.
I've sold one set of materials to a teenager who did run the experiment. Great
kid. He's in a documentary on cold fusion as a result.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265577/ even mentions him. This kid is having
serious fun.
Not a great movie, unfortunately.
I do not sell any information or information packages, just a vial of heavy
water electrolyte with palladium and lithium chloride in it, and a plastic cell
with gold and platinum wire electrodes, plus some solid state nuclear track
detectors.
I've invested about $5000 in materials and equipment (to do my own experiments
at some point), and I've collected about $400 from that sale and sales of the
radiation detectors. I did not do this to profit.
I don't recruit people on the wiki to cold fusion, rather I recruit people
interested in cold fusion to study and work on the related Wikiversity
resource, and that resource is being used to collect materials and study the
topic. I invite skeptics, *especially*.
I just incorporated Infusion Institute, Inc., in Massachusetts, to facilitate
replication, under the strictest of protocols designed to address all skeptical
objections, of work that is already generally confirmed and accepted in the
peer reviewed literature, for up to twenty years. the goal is increased
precision. I have an excellent Board of Directors, and the support of many
scientists. This is real science, and we'll be raising some real money, to make
happen what should have happened twenty years ago: definitive testing instead
of argument from theory.
The rejection of cold fusion is what is known to sociologists as a "cascade," a
phenomenon that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with social
process. Both U.S. Department of Energy reviews recommended further research,
and funding under existing programs, which never happened through the DoE. The
2004 review came close to concluding that evidence for the effect was
conclusive. They essentially wanted to see more research.
I never challenged the designation of cold fusion on Wikipedia as "fringe
science," but it did, in fact, pass on to "emerging science" roughly ten years
ago.
What I did do on Wikipedia was to challenge administrative abuse. And I was
sustained, my major sin there. That and my habit of detailed discussion.
Wikipedia's design requires consensus, because that is the only objective
standard for neutrality, but then the actual community is intolerant of what
consensus requires: lots of discussion, often facilitation is required, because
most people don't know how to actually resolve disagreements.
My stand on cold fusion is not a "belief." Science is not based on belief, but
on experimental evidence and the scientific method.
Cold fusion is a mystery, as to how it works, but we know what it does, the
original discovered effect converts deuterium to helium, the evidence for this
is already overwhelming. I know the experimental evidence, and I know the
scientists who did that published work, and it has some obvious implications,
but .. that's not a "belief."
It's a conclusion from *direct evidence,* widely confirmed, with no contrary
evidence. And the conclusion could still be wrong. I'd set the odds, though, at
more than a million to one.
And none of this has to do with what Ottava did here, attempt to drive away
someone interested in contributing to Wikiversity, because of his personal
opinions and reactions and beliefs about what is Right. His effect on
Wikiversity was highly disruptive and destructive. He attempted to have every
bureaucrat removed, and much, much more.
This is what he's always done: attack anyone who interferes with his attempt to
rule the wikis, with a farrago of lies.
Ottava Rex, give it up. You lost it. You've long been encouraged to focus on
your field, complete your doctorate. Did you?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
>________________________________
> From: Jeffrey Peters <[email protected]>
>To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:58 PM
>Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2
>
>
>
>Abd, you are one to talk. You were banned from en.wikipedia for pushing fringe
>beliefs on Cold Fusion and it turns out that you are trying to profit by
>selling your "information packages" to people.
>
>Why do you people insist on using Wikiversity to profit? It is not your
>personal play ground to use to recruit people to your outside groups.
>
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
