To AKRONOS Main Page
To the top of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
To Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines


As we have already seen, the cabal works in tag-teams, often with identifiable tag-team techniques. They pass the ball, as the following mini-war-council on Theresa Knott's User Talk page (under the title "Aetherometry") illustrates:

If you look through the talk pages and the edit histories this [we are not sure what "this" refers to] does appear to be aimed at his fellow editors. Given the context, I believe this is a personal attack (Helicoid has made several others), and it is seen as such by the other editors. Guettarda 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed it for him. As I made no other changes in that particular edit he will hopefully not revert me. We'll see what happens. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid's latest talk page message appears to be a legal threat. I have no clue how one proceeds with this. Guettarda, 02:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ignore it. He's getting upset that's all. True believers often get hot under the collar when the meet sceptics [sic, sic. Er...when the meat is septic, when they meet septics, when they eat skeptics???]. Theresa Knott, (ask the rotten) 02:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm leaving it in your more than capable hands. Thanks for stepping in. Guettarda, 02:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To achieve these masturbatory kind of "the house always wins" results, the cabal employs a variety of tag-team techniques:

5.1. In a contest with an undesirable contributor who is persistently trying to make an edit "stick", each tag-team member makes at most two reversions and then passes the baton to another member, who, in turn, can make another two reversions. This prevents any one administrator from overtly violating Wikipedia's 3RR rule - which stipulates that no more than 3 reversions of a page may be made in any one day by any one individual - while forcing the opponent, should he or she single-handedly persist, into violating the rule, at which point he or she can be declared a vandal and blocked from editing altogether.

For a good time, check out this sequence from July 5th, in which the Wikipedia cabal tag-team, against persistent edits by opponents, keeps reverting to the same earlier version of the Aetherometry article:

5.2. When the tag-team gets tired, some senior administrator cuts in to 'protect' (lock) the entry.  For instance, see this sequence from July16-17:

Another valiant act of "vandal protection" took place on July 18:

Throughout this Wiki-cabalistic sally, the heroic Theresa tied herself into knots with fatuous identifications, labyrinthic ascriptions, and wanton deletions of other people's posts from the Talk page. She then submitted a report of her exploits (under the title "Aetherometry Again") for her co-cabalists' approval on the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard:

I've just done something controversial so I'd like you'all to review my actions. Having been unable to insert POV into the article, the anon or anons (it's difficult to tell. I suspect there ias only one person using multiple IPs editing style is difficult to fake) started vandalising the page. After a couple of blankings I said we'd protect the page to stop 'em. Then the page was blanked again and then it was restored by a helpful anon. I then vprotected the page. On checking the anon's contributions I noticed that the resoration of the page was his first edit. Sockpuppet radar on alert I checked the page and lo and behold it was a revert to an earlier version. Here is where you'all need to review my actions. I could have unlocked the page and reverted. (There has been tonnes of discussion on the talk page that he has not particlipated in) But that would leave the page open for vandalism. One page blanking lasted for over an hour (see history). So instead I edited the protected page and reveted to the preblanked page. I am 99% sure that both IPs are one and the same person. He is also writing nonsense on the talk page (see history because it's been deleted). I'm off to bed now. If you think I did the wrong thing. Feel free to unprotect. But if you do, please watch out for vandalism. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Heck sure, I'll bite. It sure wasn't CONTRAVERSIAL (sic or, is that SICK?). And yes it's perfectly in line with the admin policy I've seen up until now. I don't see any cabal by the way Essjay, just the usual twisted antics of the same obnoxious little group of clowns -Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley, Anome, Natalinasmpf and co. You know the same droopy little group who have been trashing this page on an hourly basis since its inception. The ones who like to pretend they're on a noble mission to preserve the sanctity of mainstream science. The ones who don't know and don't want to know anything about the subject matter except how to find a way to smear it. The ones who act as official sockpuppets on all the serious non-mainstream science pages (see autodynamics, hydrino theory, etc.). The ones who tuck their tails between their legs and run when you confront them on facts - but are back the next day with a new set of slurs, lies and slander. Goebbels school of Information. The ones who plead on their webpages that they are 'notable' when their only notoriety is to be dicks. The ones who make sure that the pages are locked on a version of the page distorted by Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley, Anome, Natalinasmpf. The ones who cry they're being oppressed by the corporations and then proceed to try to discredit anyone conducting serious research outside of the mainstream system. The ones who pretend they are 'tidying up'. The ones who pretend the category PSEUDOSCIENCE is an NPOV description. The ones who always go running to other admins to say 'I did right didn't I? I followed wikipedia policy didn't I?' - after they've just pulled off another round of libelous slurs and suppression of information on the discussion pages. WELL IF THERE ARE ANY ADMINS LEFT IN HERE WITH ANY REMNANT OF COURAGE OR SELF RESPECT, WHICH I DOUBT, THEY SHOULD READ THE ARCHIVES OF THIS PAGE AND SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THESE ADMINS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ENTRY., 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And I second that: suspend administrator privileges on Aetherometry entry for the following: PJacobi, Theresa Knott, William Michael Connolley, Karada, Freddie Salisbury, the Anome and Mel Etitis. For repeated tag-team reversals, unfounded statements, abuse of power (deletion, suppression, alteration of records), denigration of participants, fraudulent presentation of facts, systematic harassment of participants. Similar activities on other entries on non-mainstream science., 05:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

5.3. Locking the entry against attempts by qualified contributors to stem the tide of falsifications and distortions is also part of a general strategy of the cabal to present Wikipedia as the target of vandals, and the cabal itself as a victim of vandalizing activity. Thus, on the same Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, under the title "Anonymous contributor 4.x in Aetherometry", one reads this complaint from PJacobi:

Three revert rule violation on Aetherometry. :

Reported by: Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


which is continued in another section of the Noticeboard, under the title "Silly edit war in Aetherometry":

Several (or one, who knows) anons insist on deleting this part of a sentence: Work in Aetherometry has not been published in peer-reviewed scientific publication. I've reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Anonymous_contributor 4.x in Aetherometry but I'm not sure whether all IPs are one user. Also, as I'm party, I won't block or protect myself. -- Pjacobi, 21:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Related campaing in Black hole, Neutrino, String theory. -- Pjacobi 22:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
and Hydrino theory Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Edits are coming from,,,,,,,,,,, Does it make sense to assume a single user on all these IPs? Behaviour is similiar enough. -- 22:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Imagine: these people, who routinely team up to perform multiple reversions while bypassing the 3RR, run to the Noticeboard, pretending to be victimized and in dire need of peer-counselling, when they suspect the "opponent" (i.e. the legitimate contributors) of a similar stratagem. And not content with sniffing at the IPs of "anonymous" contributors, they also extend these conflation tactics to cases where their "opponents" operate under a username, and accuse them all of being the same person. The intended effect of this, in addition to appearing victimized and under attack by a "vandal", is to buttress the manufactured image of a "consensus", which supposedly is all on the side of the cabal (since the other side has only one operator, and is a vandal and rule-violator to boot):

PC's [Paulo Correa's] credentials, training, educational history, and scientific career have been described in these discussion several times already. His career in Hematology and Oncology is neither "previous" nor irrelevant. It is ongoing, and it clearly shows that the man is a bona fide scientist who knows how to conduct scientific research. And why is it, by the way, that in this here forum it is considered a high insult to call somebody a [insult removed - WMC] - and such "insults" get removed and the targets of the "insult" are given group therapy - but it is considered perfectly acceptable to call people hoaxters, repeatedly question their credentials, edit their articles without understanding the subject matter, and form a contemptuous mob against them simply because they submitted an article whose notions challenge yours? How does this work? FrankZappo, 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Frank Zappo are you Correa? Because you are acting as if you are. As for editing of articles. This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far too polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us, thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a spade, and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all part and parcel of attempting to demean and isolate the opposition and to smoke out a potential target, a Jew with a name on whom to pin all the 'crimes' of resistance to the wanton power of the Science-Purification cabal of Wikipedia Administrators. A similar presentation (by the presumed Singaporean minor and two Administrators) of the Wikipedians as victims also appears in the early days on Aetherometry Talk:

Many of the aetherometry proponents/fanatics are coming over, accusing Wikipedians of being fascist, suppression, and abuse of are we supposed to react to this? Should we ignore it? Should we post a full rebuttal? What? I mean, what I'm afraid is we'll get a situation like Sollog where the followers of a subject they seemed to be fanatical about ends up eternally hating Wikipedia and forming a pro-vandalism organisation against it. -- Natalinasmpf, 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bloody hell that's a bit extreme. You shouldn't be so pessimistic. Welcome new users, point out personal attacks as not allowed, (best to teach by example) Work with the newcomers. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's right. This is by no means an unprecedented sitution: we've encountered many, many groups of POV warriors before. NPOV,the verifiability principle and WP:NOT [the policy article "What Wikipedia is not"] are your friend. Be polite, follow policy, be fair, be patient. These things have a way of working themselves out. -- Karada 00:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the best possible rebuttal of accusations that we are power-mad censors is that (a) the accusers are still editing here (b) the article continues to exist, and to be edited, and (c) that this whole discussion (including the accusations) is being carried out here, in plain view. -- Karada 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These "recommendations" by Karada are, of course, all for show, since the history of the Aetherometry article clearly shows repeated point-blank reversals, harassment, falsification, locking of the page, and ganging up on legitimate contributors - all in the name of so-called "protection against vandalism", kinda spiritual gangsterism.  Painting a public image of near-sainthood and self-victimization permits the cabal to protect and sanction administrative vandalism on entries whose subject matter they know nothing about, but which they are, nonetheless, determined to trash.

5.4. Amongst the various techniques of underhanded slander of "dissenting" scientists and controversial scientific work is the repeated classification of the disliked topics as "Pseudoscience" (see also Appendix 8 on Constant Recategorization). That this is done with obvious prejudice can be seen, at a glance, from the record below, in which one administrator, Kbdank71, pops up from nowhere to perform a wholesale recategorization of Aetherometry, Autodynamics, Hydrino theory and Cold Fusion:


Hydrino theory

Cold fusion

This wholesale slander by categorization executed by Administrator Kbdank71 being the executioneer in every instance, took place in the wake of the cabal's elimination by "consensus" (i.e. by ganging up and by the usual technique of disregarding the opposing votes as not being "in good faith") of the non-slanderous, NPOV Category 'Non-mainstream Science' on July 18 (see Appendix 14).  

The histories of alternative-science entries are filled with instances of this concerted vilification.  Here's the July 16 record for the Autodynamics entry, where the baton goes, in succession, from Fred Salsbury to William Michael Connolley, then Peter Jacobi, then Theresa Knott, and again to Connolley, in a tag-team game of categorizing and recategorizing Autodynamics as a Pseudoscience:

And here is an analogous record for Randall Mills' Hydrino theory:
The grimmest part of this joke is how these Administrators deliberately play the good-and-bad cop routine with an offending entry by toggling its Category. Theresa Knott seems to be especially fond of this. Thus, we see her for a while "supporting" a categorization of Aetherometry as a Protoscience, and then later "supporting" its inclusion into the new category "Non-mainstream Science".  It's all about 'kiss-ass' negotiations; in Aetherometry Talk, we read.:

The article sounds rather positive towards Aetherometry as it does not emphasis [sic] the point that aetherometry is ignored by scientists, due to the unwillingness or inability of the advocates to submit their work to peer review. I personally just object to have it categorized as anything other than pseudoscience, or maybe non-mainstream science as a compromise, although that category did not exist until the protoscience category was removed here. Salsb, 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Actually the dispute recently has centered on the category. Hopfully that is settled now with the new compromise name. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke), 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

This "hope" did not, of course, in any way motivate the good Theresa to vote against deletion of the "Non-mainstream science" category (see Appendix 14); after its deletion, she just as cheerily took part in tossing Aetherometry back into the Pseudoscience pot, and later ensured that the article would be locked against "vandal" reclassifications.

5.5. The cabal takes recourse to arbitrary and shifting definitions of what is or is not acceptable science, what is or is not meant by peer-review, and which scientific publications are or are not authoritative - always with the result that the aprioristic label Pseudoscience can appear to be justified. Note, for instance that in the Autodynamics article, a derogatory mention of Autodynamics in what Wikipedians refer to as "the popular magazine Wired" is quoted as perfectly acceptable evidence to discredit the subject:

A 1999 article in the popular magazine Wired [2] quotes Pierre Noyes, a professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, as claiming "most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a 'crackpot theory'". Autodynamics supporters dispute this claim, and say that the design of the experiment performed by Noyes rendered its results useless and therefore did not constitute a definitive refutation of autodynamics.

while publications in Physics Essays are declared by Freddie Salsbury, in Autodynamics Talk, as "absence of scientific literature"!

This is not what would normally be considered peer-review, and Physics Essays is moderately well-known as a vanity press journal. (...)  Three "essays" by the same author in the same "journal", and the one citation these three articles receive is a self-citation, the 1997 essay cites the 1992 essay. pretty clear pseudoscience . Salsb, 9 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Please show any links, articles physicist etc. that show Physics Essays is a bad journal...., 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
See above, its so-called "peer-review" policy, and its poor citation record by other journals makes that it clear thar Physics Essays is not a reputable source. {and you do have a physicist telling you about the quality of this "journal" } Salsb, 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, to classify - in a deemed encyclopedia! -a theory like Autodynamics as Pseudoscience, when it is a fact that its testing has not been settled, is just one more act of bad-faith and insertion of a highly biased POV - which runs rampantly against the stated Wikipedia rules. There are plenty of such examples in the Wikipedia pages.

It is worth noting on what basis the label "pseudoscience" is applied:

The main difference simply is: Aetherometry isn't present in scientific discourse. The combination of this, with the extraordinary claims, and also taking into account who the supporters are, just disqualifies the topic. O.K., nobody can outrule right now, that there is some spark of genius hidden in this theory, but by all measures, it is well hidden. -- Pjacobi, 19:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) [In Aetherometry Talk]

Three sentences - and every single one "cooked to taste". Aetherometry is, of course, plenty present in scientific discourse, only PJacobi does not recognize that discourse as "scientific", because when PJacobi says "scientific", he means "mainstream". Then when he hints at the disreputable nature of the "supporters", he means they are disreputable by the very virtue of supporting non-mainstream science (such as Aetherometry; i.e. "she's a witch and therefore everybody who says otherwise must be a witch too"). And then note the strategic employment, so dear to these Wikipedia cabalists, of the word "genius": the insinuation here is that the creators of the theory make mad claims to being possessed by "genius", to being unrecognized "geniuses" - rather then just claiming to be doing solid science. Also note the little phrase "it is well hidden" - as if PJacobi had actually dilligently familiarized himself with aetherometric research and was competent to judge what is, or is not, hidden in it. Three seemingly innocent sentences, and each one presided over by unfounded contempt, malicious desire to ridicule, and disdain for people's work and reputations. And by a shameful disregard of facts; for the limitations of the "peer-review system" and the process of acceptance into the mainstream are well known, and have been documented in mainstream scientific publications and even in a US Supreme Court opinion on what is or is not science (see Appendix 9).

Observe that the invention of the category Pseudoscience, and its use to harass contributors, is a private sport which the Wikipedia Administrators gratuitously glued on top of Wikipedia policy. Here is a statement of the latter, in the words of Administrator Pjacobi himself:

"Wikipedia policy. It makes a difference whether something is taught at universities or not. The Wikipedia documents the current consensus in the field of science, and one person's theories only to the extent they are notable". -- Pjacobi 01:14, 2005 May 5 (UTC) [in Autodynamics Talk]

This would imply that if the topic of a submitted article is neither part of the "current consensus" nor a notable theory by one person, the author of the article should simply be informed of the policy, and the article should be rejected - i.e. deleted. Nowhere does the policy state that articles on topics not meeting the above criteria should be subjected to ridicule, categorized as "Pseudoscience", and forcibly kept in Wikipedia for the sole purpose of propagating public slander, disrespect and falsification of facts and theories.

5.6. The absence of evidence is repeatedly utilized as evidence of absence. Thus, for example, even though papers in Aetherometry have been published in peer-reviewed alternative magazines or journals (see Appendix 3), its absence from mainstream scientific publications is considered, in and of itself, to be an impugnation of the work.  Here is the "key point" made by that precociously incoherent gnat, Natalinasmpf:

The key point is peer review, discussion in scientific journals/scientific conventions, which develops any scientific model and the more discussion in journals, the more it is revised, the more plausible it can be justified to be, etc. Aetherometry has none of this. Natalinasmpf 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is invoked over and over, as if science could only be true if properly collectivized. Theresa Knott comes back to it, for example, in her labors on July 16 (quoted in reverse chronological order):

These records represent a clear and undeniable bias against everything non-mainstream and everybody involved in it. A bias not founded in comprehemsion of the material, but on the servile policies of the groups led by Mr. Wales.

5.7.  One might have thought that given this hard-line position, which accepts as science only that which is 'published in peer-reviewed mainstream publications', these Wikipedian paragons would also consult exclusively peer-reviewed mainstream sources when looking for critical views on scientific work. Yet, when it comes to non-mainstream science, they are perfectly happy to use any patently muckraking reference they can lay their hands on, usually from the most sensationalist of pseudoscientific (by Wikipedia's own standards) sources - the kind they otherwise so much decry - to 'authoritatively' denigrate dissident and pioneering research. For example:

    * James DeMeo, a pseudo-scientific, neo-Reichian who is neither a physicist nor a biologist, is cited to denigrate Aetherometry
    * Eric Krieg, a professional skeptic who is also not a scientist, is invoked to denigrate Hydrino theory
    * Keelynet is cited as a source for an unsigned, undated article from Reuters, in disparagement of Cold Fusion
    * An article in Wired magazine is quoted to degrade the work of Carezani.

5.8. Peers who gave favorable reviews to the work in pioneering science presently under discussion, are disqualified because they also spoke in favor of other "dissenting sciences" (actually, if you scratch at it, the logic reveals itself to be straighforwardly circular: they are disqualified by the very fact that they support any "dissenting science"):

" [Eugene] Mallove disqualifies himself as defense witness by starting his essay with During the past 15 years, indisputable experimental evidence has built up for substantial excess heat (far beyond ordinary chemical energy) and low-energy nuclear reaction phenomena in specialized heavy hydrogen and ordinary hydrogen-containing systems.. While this is an interesting topic, it is by no means "indisputable". " --- Pjacobi 06:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Inconvenient contributors are muzzled for "violation of rules" or "vandalism". One form this can take is blocking the contributor from editing and from posting to Talk pages. Then somebody else from the same gang that performed the blocking proceeds to pose queries or provocations to the blocked contributor, knowing full well that the contributor cannot respond. Here is one example from Aetherometry Talk, following the blocking of user Helicoid (see Appendix 11):

But there's something truely strange about that, that they haven't got a wider circle of scientists to look at it. Sure there is plenty of unthinking resistance , as documented in Axelrod's letter, but if they keep trying, especially with some media help, than their fortunes could be quickly made. Yet we don't hear anything about it except for a few webpages and _Infinite Energy_ and such. Why is that? GangofOne, 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) And two more:

from what I can see, almost all of the cited publications are either:

Could you possibly give me the cites which do not come under any of the categories above? -- Karada, 12:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding J DeMeo who you are citing above Please could you clarify something? Was the confirmed rediscovery of the orgone motor before or after this open letter "I have every right to change my mind about my offers of support, which I did after obtaining negative results on one of your experimental claims, after reading your published papers in detail, and especially after having my concerns about these matters being treated dismissively." Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Another form of muzzling is locking the given article, so that it cannot be edited - ostensibly because it is being "vandalized" (by the legitimate contributors); this can then be properly followed by issuing an encouragement to the contributors to edit the article.  An example is the locking of the Aetherometry entry on July 17, followed by this invitation from Theresa Knott in Talk:

You argument would have more merit if the anon editor actually put some info into the article about aetherometry instead of trying to delete facts that he happens not to like. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The policial ambiance of denunciation and falsification can be gauged from the complaints on the Administrators' Notice Board (see Appendix 12).

5.10.  Another tag-team special is the incessant demeaning of contributors and relevant parties through insinuations.  Important here is that even when the insinuations have been fully answered (eg concerning Paulo Correa's PhD, his peer-reviewed research results, his patents, etc), a few days or weeks later some other club player repeats the very same routine all over again, as if it had never occurred before.

The insinuation of either the lack or the irrelevance of Dr. Correa's credentials, already described earlier as an example of a constant war of attrition, is a good illustration of this technique.  The reader is also referred to Appendix 2, where the Wikipedia cabal's persistent botherment on this topic spans two sections of the Aetherometry Talk, one entitled  "To Guettarda, concerning Correa's degree" and the other "Correa's PhD", with an ending date of June 29th. At that time, credentials and a list of publications was supplied, and references to them were inserted into the article itself to forestall further doubt-raising. But on July 17, courtesy of William M. Connolley, the same specious insinuations returned:

If PC is such [i.e. a trained scientist with a history of mainstream scientific research], what are his mainstream pubs? What was his training? lists a vast number of self pubs. There is a small section of nominally non-self pubs, but there is a lot of "infinite energy" in that section. Most of the rest are patents, not pubs. I don't see a single genuine mainstream science paper in the lot. Which ones are you thinking of? Unless you're thinking of his previous career in Hematology and Oncology, which doesn't seem relevant." William M. Connolley 22:12:26, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

In response to Connoley's clarion call, other members of the tag-team rush in and clean the previously-demanded credentials out of the article:

And the same gratuitous harassment continues through the next day, with endless repetitions of the same -

PC's career in Hematology and Oncology is obviously irrelevant (asserting that either has any real connection to a physics theory will only make your oddness index go up). It isn't even current - his last 1st author pub was in 1999. So, I've asked you to list his physics based pubs, in real journals, and you can produce none. This is why the theory gets dismissed (or more accurately, is never even noticed enough to be dismissed) by physicists. William M. Connolley 12:32:46, 2005-07-18 (UTC).

And so on, and so forth...

5.11.  One of the preferred techniques is to appear ready to establish a dialogue - which then, in practice, turns out to be a one-way street: when the legitimate contributors ask questions, but Administrators rarely answer them. It is a mock dialogue. The phony invitation is a well rehearsed imposture, as shown by the following example from Autodynamics Talk:

These citations appear support something such as "autodynamics proponents claim that [Nobel laureate physicist] Alvarez considered the experiments worthwhile" Salsb 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's be objective Dr. Salsb: who gave Noyes a mandate to speak for a majority of scientists? Wired magazine? And Lee Smolin - basking in the glory of his father - he's regarded as non-mainstream also because of his views of the New Aether. He is not a rep of mainstream science. And then, why not call them "detractors of Autodynamics", since that is what they are, if you call the others "proponents"? See here, I'm no proponent of Autodynamics; I find it very interesting, even find error with it, but would never call it pseudo-science, because I admit it could be right; as right as relativity. Are you a detractor of Autodynamics? Do you oppose serious consideration of its contentions? 17:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's be objective; to attach his name and say quoted by obviously makes it personal opnion. I have been going for the neutral phrase supporters myself not proponents. Salsb 17:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I leave that up to you and the other Anon. But I'll give you my thoughts: 1. Why is Noyes "saying" and not "claiming" when he claims to speak for a majority of scientists?? 2. Does he? Was he a spokesmen for the official governmental line of science? Or he was expressing his personal opinion? 3. Why are the detractors (Noyes and Smolin) not called detractors, if the others are supporters and yet may include those who do not support the theory but think that it should be given serious consideration? 4. Why do you not reference Alvarez himself, since he wrote in support of Carezani's efforts? His letters are referenced and referenceable. 18:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Many questions, but never an answer.

5.12. Let's not forget other, less visible techniques, properly electronic, such as monitoring a contributor's input window during the process of typing, blocking the contribution with pretended notices of an 'edit conflict', outright prevention of a given IP number from saving a new edit, and the best of these cyberStasi techniques: toggling the title of edit buttons to confuse a contributor wanting to make an edit. An age of pure electronic fascism has descended, and Wikipedia is at its forefront.

Consider, for example, this product, peddled to Wikipedia admins:

CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter is an amazing tool created by Wikipedia user CryptoDerk to..fight vandals. It is written in Java and connects to the en.wikipedia irc channel where all new edits are displayed in real time. It has loads of options, allowing you to color code certain edits based on regular expressions, filter via black lists and white lists, manually specify an article watch list more.

It's hard to convey how cool it is to see vandalism and to then revert it within 2-3 seconds.

To use this tool most effectively, you will need to either be a sysop, or have Godmode-light installed. Godmode-light is a bit of javascript written by Wikipedian Sam Hocevar for giving non-sysop users a bit more power when editing. The link above has instructions on installing it. After you have it running, whenever you view the differences between revisions of a wikipedia article, you will see a rollback link

Like little gods, admins can 'roll back' any 'vandal', and anyone who disagrees with them, within in 2-3 seconds.  'God mode' indeed. The age of the petty cyberbureaucrat.

5.13.  Lastly, we have the technique of calling a Vote for Deletion (VfD) on a submitted entry (which gives every Wikipedia editor a chance to come out of the woodwork and express his or her disdain for a subject they know nothing about, for the benefit of Google), and half-way through the vote erasing the entry and replacing it with a mock entry acceptable only to the Wikipedia cabal (who can then reverse their vote and forever keep the falsified entry). This is what happened with the Aetherometry article (the original can be read at Encyclopedia Nomadica).  One participant called this technique by its rightful name:

What [do] you call a vote on a submission that half-way through the vote is trashed and replaced? The triumph of the barbarians. 23:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a record of the VfD regarding Aetherometry, see Appendix 13. It is a rather hilarious document. At first, the Science Police and its hounds vigorously and fatuously attacked the entry and clamored for its removal, while the "supporters" of Aetherometry defended the entry and wanted it kept. After a few days, the Science Police gutted the article, leaving in place a caricature devoid of information and always ready to slip into inanity and falsehood. Seeing how Wikipedia operates, the "supporters" of Aetherometry began to vociferously vote to have the entry removed. The Science Police, on the other hand, now voted to keep the entry, viewing it as a vehicle for their "noble mission" of "educating the public" - i.e. of publicly smearing non-mainstream science:

"If this will be kept, we have a noble mission for mankind, to create a sober description and critique here. Note that the Google search doesn't find anything like that (if I looked right in agony), the only critical page being a Reichian researcher in Orgon energy who has some differences with the Correas." -- Pjacobi 07:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

"But not all topics can pass as science, and all topics have to pass some form of relevance test. We can't just present everything everybody sometime wrote about the universe. If Aetherometry passes the relevance test and the VfD, the article will need a major re-write." -- Pjacobi 06:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

"It is our noble mission indeed for mankind to make sure such theories get a proper critique, such that this article may always be cited in opposition to this theory to prevent people from being duped into believing this stuff for once and for all. If it's that notable, then such a theory in danger of cheating people must be addressed with the proper truth that this doesn't go well with actual science. -- Natalinasmpf, 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oy, Keep per Dragon's Flight. Notable pseudoscience needs to be debunked, even if it gives me a headache, and it can't be debunked without being defined. Xoloz 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, as it turns out, Dear Readers, Wikipedia's policy with respect to voting permits Administrators to disregard, as being in "bad faith", (1) votes which were cast without first "logging in" using a username (so-called "anon" votes, as if Wikipedia usernames were less "anon" than IP numbers, or did not employ their own sockpuppets, as already shown), and (2) votes from users who do not have a history of editing other entries - i.e. people who actually care about, and have something to say about, this particular subject matter, and are not in the Wikipedia Club. As Theresa Knott put it (and she actually did not articulate the full permissiveness of the policy) a few days before the votes were counted:

The way vfd is going at the moment the article is likely to be kept. I'm sorry to dissapoint all the anon voters but votes by non logged in users are usually ignored. As are votes by logged in users who's account was creared after the vfd debate started. (This is to deal with sockpuppets trying to vote multiple times). Once those are removed there is approximately a 50:50 split which is not enough to delete the article. (Of course a number of regular editors may vote on the last day and swing the vote. It aint over until the fat lady sings) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These, then, are some of the motivations, procedures and tactics whereby Wikipedia gets to feature a rare collection of misinformative, malignant articles on subjects which, in accordance with the spirit of its own policies concerning original research and research not accepted into the mainstream, should be honestly and straighforwardly rejected. Here is Theresa Knott again, describing in candid detail the vengeance project of the cabal, in these perfectly paranoid terms:

[...] As for editing of articles. This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far too polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us, thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a spade, and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The cabal is on a 'noble mission' to defeat the enemies of a mass-culture - and their siege mentality justifies them in fabricating facts, censoring legitimate contributions, erasing history and propagating unprovoked lies about researchers and scientific works which are at loggerheads with Big Science.  The Wikipedia cabals are the new inquisition of knowledge, and the following exchange from Aetherometry Talk illustrates this paranoid cyber-despotism, while encapsulating the entire war:

[This is addressed to User Joke137:] Don't give up. Its what they want. I've removed the insult entirely. William M. Connolley, 22:12:26, 2005-07-17 (UTC).
They??? Who is this "they"? The people who know something about the subject? Usually in an encyclopedia the people who are experts on the subjects get invited to write entries, not treated as a "they" whom one has to defeat. Weird inversion, no? FrankZappo 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
They are the people who are trying to POV the article to make out that this is a credible theory rather than crackpottery. Wanna prove me wrong? Publish in a proper journal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Prove you wrong? Why, who are you to deserve any "proof"? If you suspect Aetherometry is crackpottery, then you can politely say "Sorry, this article does not belong in the WikiPedia because we have no way of judging the merit of the science." Period. Good bye. Or, if you have enough intelligence and breadth of thought to realize that there could be many reasons why a meritorious theory has not been published in mainstream journals, and you want a real encyclopedia article about Aetherometry, then treat the contributors with respect. These are the two honorable paths. Otherwise, what the hell is this, a witch hunt? A freak show? It's no longer permitted to attack blacks, women or Jews, but it's open season for deriding and showing contempt for people who have the courage to think for themselves in science and have made unconventional scientific discoveries? FrankZappo 14:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In what way is it contempt to state in the article that the Correas work has not been peer reviewed? That is simply a fact. Yet pro aetherometry folks keep trying to remove it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A fact? No, it is not. A fact is to say that it has not been published in peer-reviewed mainstream science publications. For it has been published in peer-reviewed non-mainstream science publications. But since you and your fellow-travellers deleted the Category non-mainstream science, now you're back to the very dogmatism that sometime back you yourself Knott wanted to avoid when you settled for Protoscience and then Non-mainstream science (before it was deleted...). Who's fooling who? 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
To close this section, we quote the words of the original author of the Aetherometry article, who best summarized this story:

Yes, now we know how Wikipedian machinations work, the kind of kangaroo court of knowledge that Wikipedia has become, the kind of administrator 'research' by the fastest mouse click possible: to become a peer of anything you read on the web; anything will do, Roger Wilcox and Demeo (sheer pseudo-science and pseudo-Reichianism) do not need to have published their attacks on W. Reich and the Correas in any peer-review publication, let alone a mainstream one. A simple search and some dirt turns up, presto! Then that dirt can be used to impugn those that HAVE LEGITIMATE DEGREES, UNTARNISHED REPUTATIONS and DO LEGITIMATE WORK EVEN IF THEIR PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM BUT MINORITARY. I think that Wikipedia needs to be denounced loud and clear. I suspect it will. Helicoid. 26 June