I've worked with Steve Foerster before, I think it was at Wikieducator and Resist Copyright wasn't it Steve? Steve is a respectable guy, who I would very much value having around in Wikiversity. I don't much engage with the over all policies and politics of Wikiversity Steve. They tend to go the same way Wikieducator has from time to time. I hope you'll etch out a little project space and proceed. On 23/12/2013 4:39 AM, "Jeffrey Peters" 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:

Also, as an FYI to others on the list - Steve Foerster founded a competitor to Wikiversity and has an extreme conflict of interest in this topic. Most likely, he doesn't even have a Wikiversity account.

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Steve Foerster steve@hiresteve.comwrote:

...

Agreed. The mention of PlanetMath, which is a good resource, was obviously meant to be a helpful response to a question asked by someone else.

Even if there is a policy against mentioning external resources, no matter how relevant or good they may be, it should be rescinded. Such a policy would place the organisation over its stated goal to further education.

-=Steve=-

-------- Original Message -------- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:13:07 +0000 From: Nkansah Rexford nkansahrexford@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Are "solved problems" suitable for Wikiversity?

@jeffery, mentioning Planet math here is advertising? Really? When did that become advertising?

Hmmmm, still wondering. Its not as if the link is to Joe's personal website or something. Its a website known by many. Joe is just bringing up an issue and I believe its great considering the matter than banning the matter saying its advertising.

"Not an advertising group"? Apart from the mailing list of Wikiversity, where else can discussions of this sort be held?

I'm in this mailing list, Wikimania, Wikipedia, and other mailing lists. Links are posted to references and stuffs like that. They're all Wikimedia mailing list, but how come such links never get categorized as adverts but are used in discussion?

Is this "not advertising group" idea applied to only Wikiversity?

Cmon

google.com/+Nkansahrexford | sent from Tab

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

Thank you for a rational response to this teapot storm.

-----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2

Jeffrey Peters, since he mentioned Wikiversity accounts, as an FYI to others on this list, is well-known as WMF global account Ottava Rima, banned on Wikipedia and not uncommonly blocked elsewhere for gratuitous and tendentious incivility. His routine practice can readily be seen in this thread.

There is no policy against mentioning useful web sites, that is handled on-wiki on a case-by-case basis. If it's relevant, it is totally allowed here, as well. COI is irrelevant, as long as there is no pretense.

Basically, one can ignore the claims of Peters as to rules. He frequently makes them up. If you add a reasonable link on Wikiversity and someone removes it, discuss the matter. I'm user Abd there, and not a sysop, but I know some.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:

Also, as an FYI to others on the list - Steve Foerster founded a competitor to Wikiversity and has an extreme conflict of interest in this topic. Most likely, he doesn't even have a Wikiversity account.

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Steve Foerster steve@hiresteve.com wrote:

Agreed. The mention of PlanetMath, which is a good resource, was obviously meant to be a helpful response to a question asked by someone else.

Even if there is a policy against mentioning external resources, no matter how relevant or good they may be, it should be rescinded. Such a policy would place the organisation over its stated goal to further education.

-=Steve=-

-------- Original Message -------- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:13:07 +0000 From: Nkansah Rexford nkansahrexford@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Are "solved problems" suitable for Wikiversity?

@jeffery, mentioning Planet math here is advertising? Really? When did that become advertising?

Hmmmm, still wondering. Its not as if the link is to Joe's personal website or something. Its a website known by many. Joe is just bringing up an issue and I believe its great considering the matter than banning the matter saying its advertising.

"Not an advertising group"? Apart from the mailing list of Wikiversity, where else can discussions of this sort be held?

I'm in this mailing list, Wikimania, Wikipedia, and other mailing lists. Links are posted to references and stuffs like that. They're all Wikimedia mailing list, but how come such links never get categorized as adverts but are used in discussion?

Is this "not advertising group" idea applied to only Wikiversity?

Cmon

google.com/+Nkansahrexford | sent from Tab

_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

"I did go on to respond to Ottava's radically incorrect information about me."

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd

"I was topic-bannedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_banned_from_cold_fusion_articleon en.wikipedia, on the topic of Cold fusion https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion, due to alleged tendentious editing. As this matter was before ArbComm, I realized that there was a business opportunity in the field,"

Your own words. Odd how you would call yourself a liar.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.comwrote:

You're welcome. I did go on to respond to Ottava's radically incorrect information about me. He's been repeating this stuff for a long time, and I've ignored it for a long time, but .... decided today to respond on wiki on his talk page, where he once again repeated it. He deleted it, but, of course, deleting it shows that it was seen. I do not intend to rant on and on about cold fusion here. Why would I bother?

What I do want to see is more academics and experts contributing to Wikiversity. They will not come (or will not stay) if people like Ottava are allowed to harass them.

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.

---

*From:* Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com *To:* wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:21 PM

*Subject:* Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2

Thank you for a rational response to this teapot storm.

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

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=...

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 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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.

Look you two guys - cut it out. I now recall your battles on wikiversity a few years back. You pissed a lot of people off then, including me, and you are most likely pissing off a lot of people here. In that regard, there is nothing to chose between you. Please just stop. It is not productive.

Bduke

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:25:20AM -0500, Jeffrey Peters wrote:

"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 always goes back to that. He rants and raves, and always comes back to his obsession. Abd hates anyone who points out that his obsession is false, and it is obvious that Abd has an agenda to make money off of his obsession.

Wonderful guy.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.comwrote:

...

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=...

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 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu

*To:* Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org *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 Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

Cold Fusion is not a science and it is obvious that Abd is fantasizing again just like on cold fusion.

Perhaps he should be banned from commenting on this list.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:19 AM, H Arbabian arbabian@gmail.com wrote:

I see some unsupported messages among the many supportive. For sure there is a long way ahead. The idea of wikiversity is important to all of us and needs everybody's contribution to grow. Wikiversity would be able to connect all the sciences to provide a much better situation of human kind hopefully.

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke@bigpond.net.au

...

wrote:

...

Look you two guys - cut it out. I now recall your battles on wikiversity a few years back. You pissed a lot of people off then, including me, and you are most likely pissing off a lot of people here. In that regard, there is nothing to chose between you. Please just stop. It is not productive.

Bduke

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:25:20AM -0500, Jeffrey Peters wrote:

...

"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 always goes back to that. He rants and raves, and always comes back

to

...

his obsession. Abd hates anyone who points out that his obsession is

false,

...

and it is obvious that Abd has an agenda to make money off of his

obsession.

...

Wonderful guy.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Abd ulRahman Lomax <

abdlomax@yahoo.com>wrote:

...

...

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=...

...

...

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 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu

*To:* Mailing list for Wikiversity <wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org

...

*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 Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

...

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

-- Brian Salter-Duke bduke@wikimedia.org.au Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others. [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

---

Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

I comment on matters that come to my attention where I consider that the comments may be beneficial to at least one other person. The rest of the universe is free to ignore my comments, unless they are on order of "Heads up! A piano is falling here."

From Bduke's comment, I was moved to look at his Wikiversity contributions.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bduke

He started contributing sporadically to Wikiversity in 2006; but he became a rare contributor to content since around February 2008. He made a few comments in April 2010, and then again went on formal wikibreak. While he did not necessarily agree with what was being done then, a Resource had been started on treatment of newbies on Wikipedia, his fears of disruption over that did not materialize.

January 28. 2011, having only one edit the previous August, since the end of April, 2010, he commented quite similarly to how he commented here, the edit summary was "Please just STOP!" He proceeded to support desysopping me. While he equally condemned Ottava, his action was actually supporting Ottava's obvious long term goal: revenge.

The reason I've written this today is that I found a discussion with him where I laid out what I saw as a major long term wiki and social media problem. I've seen it since the 1980s, and BDuke is demonstrating it. Rather than repeat all that, I'll just present some links. What I'd seen many years ago was that when two users appear to be involved in a flame war, the community will knee-jerk blame both.

If all one user is doing is describing the situation neutrally, it happens quite the same, people will ''assume'' that the descriptions are biased, and few people will look at the evidence.

This is not much of a problem on Wikiversity any more, fingers crossed. It remains a huge problem on Wikipedia. Thekohser made a similar point with BDuke as I am making now.

The philosophy is all too common: "I know what I don't like, and I don't need any evidence. I can see what is going on, I don't need to read or study." And then, in a user conduct discussion, the user !votes "Ban.or Desysop." Happens all the time. The hidden policy violation: "Thou shalt not annoy me."

The problem with this arises when the annoying one is a messenger.

On darklama Talk, some background: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=694314#Assuming_we_h...

then on my Talk page: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&oldid=701149#...

If anyone other than Ottava (Jeffrey Peters) has questions, I'll respond. That includes BDuke, to whom I apologize for irritating him. Otherwise, I hope I'm done here.

BDuke is a quantum chemist. He could be very useful on Wikiversity. I'ld love it if a professor of chemistry were to take an interest in the Cold fusion resource, and especially one versed in quantum chemistry. That is still a single resource, top level, and thus must be neutral, though original research is allowed.

(for an example of how conflict can be handled, see the resource on Landmark Education. On Wikipedia, this would have turned into a gawd awful mess.) "Sections." The same topic can be covered as managed by individual scholars, as long as the overall presentation is neutral.

I do have plenty of chemists to consult, but they don't edit the wiki.(I'm working on that!)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.

---

From: Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au To: wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2

Look you two guys - cut it out. I now recall your battles on wikiversity a few years back. You pissed a lot of people off then, including me, and you are most likely pissing off a lot of people here. In that regard, there is nothing to chose between you. Please just stop. It is not productive.

Brilliant demonstration of the points I made in my last two posts, one of which Brian quoted.

The problem is that Wikipedia depends critically on an assumption that editors will engage with reliable source and with each other to find consensus, and too many are unwilling to do that, but are quite willing to nevertheless vote and act from only their own point of view, their beliefs, which are founded on ancient and personal experience, not being open to amendment or compromise.

Brian has clearly never understood the founding principles of Wikiversity, the progressive education model that it embodies.

He could still contribute, he's welcome, but it's likely he won't. Except maybe to pop in and help prevent solutions from finding consensus.

As for the rest of us, here is the challenge: how do we run a wiki given that humans are as we are? WV is a place where we may learn by doing. It is a place where we may study, in addition to many other subjects, wiki process. On reviewing BDuke's WV history, one of his few comments was to advise against that. It might be disruptive.

That fear of disruption is characteristic of the mind set that opposes progressive education.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 23, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:

The problem here is exactly as it was on wikiversity in 2010. Each of you says that you are fine and it is the other fellow who is to blame. The reality is that both of you are disruptive and put people off from contributing.

Yes, I am a quantum chemist and it still keeps me busy in my old age after retiring more than 10 years ago. No, I am not going to take an interest in the cold fusion resource, because cold fusion should have no place on wikiversity as it is pure and simple bollocks.

Bduke.

...

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 07:08:43PM -0800, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote: I comment on matters that come to my attention where I consider that the comments may be beneficial to at least one other person. The rest of the universe is free to ignore my comments, unless they are on order of "Heads up! A piano is falling here."

...

From Bduke's comment, I was moved to look at his Wikiversity contributions.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bduke

He started contributing sporadically to Wikiversity in 2006; but he became a rare contributor to content since around February 2008. He made a few comments in April 2010, and then again went on formal wikibreak. While he did not necessarily agree with what was being done then, a Resource had been started on treatment of newbies on Wikipedia, his fears of disruption over that did not materialize.

January 28. 2011, having only one edit the previous August, since the end of April, 2010, he commented quite similarly to how he commented here, the edit summary was "Please just STOP!" He proceeded to support desysopping me. While he equally condemned Ottava, his action was actually supporting Ottava's obvious long term goal: revenge.

The reason I've written this today is that I found a discussion with him where I laid out what I saw as a major long term wiki and social media problem. I've seen it since the 1980s, and BDuke is demonstrating it. Rather than repeat all that, I'll just present some links. What I'd seen many years ago was that when two users appear to be involved in a flame war, the community will knee-jerk blame both.

If all one user is doing is describing the situation neutrally, it happens quite the same, people will ''assume'' that the descriptions are biased, and few people will look at the evidence.

This is not much of a problem on Wikiversity any more, fingers crossed. It remains a huge problem on Wikipedia. Thekohser made a similar point with BDuke as I am making now.

The philosophy is all too common: "I know what I don't like, and I don't need any evidence. I can see what is going on, I don't need to read or study." And then, in a user conduct discussion, the user !votes "Ban.or Desysop." Happens all the time. The hidden policy violation: "Thou shalt not annoy me."

The problem with this arises when the annoying one is a messenger.

On darklama Talk, some background: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=694314#Assuming_we_h...

then on my Talk page: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&oldid=701149#...

If anyone other than Ottava (Jeffrey Peters) has questions, I'll respond. That includes BDuke, to whom I apologize for irritating him. Otherwise, I hope I'm done here.

BDuke is a quantum chemist. He could be very useful on Wikiversity. I'ld love it if a professor of chemistry were to take an interest in the Cold fusion resource, and especially one versed in quantum chemistry. That is still a single resource, top level, and thus must be neutral, though original research is allowed.

(for an example of how conflict can be handled, see the resource on Landmark Education. On Wikipedia, this would have turned into a gawd awful mess.) "Sections." The same topic can be covered as managed by individual scholars, as long as the overall presentation is neutral.

I do have plenty of chemists to consult, but they don't edit the wiki.(I'm working on that!)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.

...

---

From: Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au To: wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2

Look you two guys - cut it out. I now recall your battles on wikiversity a few years back. You pissed a lot of people off then, including me, and you are most likely pissing off a lot of people here. In that regard, there is nothing to chose between you. Please just stop. It is not productive.

-- Brian Salter-Duke bduke@wikimedia.org.au Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.