1. Short introduction to Wikipedia lingo

Let us start with a brief exposition of some of the Wikipedia-specific concepts to which we will refer below:

- Wiki markup: In editing Wikipedia pages, one can use a set of shorthand symbols which get automatically translated into HTML when one saves the results of one's edit. For example, double square brackets can be used to indicate references to other Wikipedia articles, and a colon at the beginning of a line indicates an indentation.

- Talk pages: Every Wikipedia article has an accompanying "Talk" page, whose purpose is to provide a discussion and coordination forum for those already working on the entry or interested in contributing to it.

- History pages: Every editable page in Wikipedia has an accompanying "History" page, which shows a chronological record of all the modifications to the page, often with editorial comments summarizing or justifying the edit. Since History pages show edit actions, they are displayed in the original wiki markup that was used by the editors.

- Users: The crucial idea behind Wikipedia is that anybody can edit any article. When doing so, one can - but doesn't have to - first log in under a previously-established Username, in which case one's edits appear "signed" with that name. Otherwise, the edits appear "signed" with the IP number from which one has been connected while editing. Wikipedia regulars like to make much of the distinction between edits performed under a Username and other edits, and they disparagingly refer to the authors of the latter as "anons" - as if a Wikipedia Username, such as "Dragon's Flight" or "Helicoid", was somehow less "anonymous" than an IP number. When one registers a new Username, a Wikipedia article pertaining to that Username automatically gets created, and one can (but doesn't have to ) use it to provide "information" about "oneself". Like all other Wikipedia articles, "User" articles, too, can be edited by anybody, and each has an associated "User Talk" page that is typically used to send requests, comments, questions, etc. to the given User.

- Administrative hierarchy: The Wikimedia software used by Wikipedia allows at least two specially privileged categories of Users: Administrators and Bureaucrats. The special powers of an Administrator include blocking other Users from performing edits, deleting articles that have been voted for deletion, and blocking specific articles from being edited by non-Administrators ("locking" articles). The special powers of a Bureaucrat include appointing Administrators. To be promoted to an Administrator or Bureaucrat within Wikipedia, a User has to go through a procedure of formal petitioning and self-evaluation, be able to boast a sufficient number of edits to various Wikipedia articles and successes in dealing with various Wikipedia crises, and undergo a neo-maoist critique and a mock "voting in" by other Wikipedia regulars.

- Authorship: The notion of "authorship" does not exist within Wikipedia. Once an article is submitted - i.e. entered in Wikipedia - modifying it becomes a free-for-all in which everybody is equal in principle, irrespective of competence or even interest in the subject matter. Admins and their charges are, of course, more equal than other Users or 'anons'. And since the article, upon submission, immediately becomes "communal", there is no way for the original submitter to withdraw it. The only way it could ever be removed from Wikipedia is through another mock "Vote for Deletion" (VfD) (see Voting).

- Voting: Voting, especially Voting for Deletion (VfD), seems to be a favorite Wikipedia 'activity'. In the course of barely a month, the Aetherometry entry witnessed two rounds of Votes for Deletion: one pertaining to the entry itself, and the other to the category "Non-Mainstream Science" which was created to enable a truthful categorization of - well, entries pertaining to non-mainstream science. A Vote for Deletion can be initiated by anybody. The process lasts about a week, and the final outcome is made on the basis of a "rough consensus". Although formally anybody can participate in the vote, and in spite of the central place occupied in Wikipedia ideology by the notions of "community" and "democracy", not all votes do in fact count. Here is the relevant guideline:

Thus those voters who are not members of the "Wikipedia club" but care about one topic, or the fate of a specific article, are officially considered to be in "bad faith". It is, in fact, considered 'bad form' to care about a topic, about its accuracy and content.

- Categorization of entries: Every Wikipedia entry is classified into one or more categories. There are a vast number of existing categories and new ones are trivially easy to create. In spite of this, Wikipedia does not offer a single category which would provide for a fair, factual and non-judgemental classification for nonmainstream science, whether pioneering or dissenting. In the course of the "Aetherometry war" one of the participants created just such a category - it was called "Non-mainstream science". The category was promptly submitted to a Vote for Deletion (see Appendix 14), and deleted. Just to give a flavor of the Wikipedians' perverse fixation on scientific obscenity: the subcategories of Category "Science" include Pseudoscience and Protoscience. Subcategories of "Pseudoscience" include Pseudophysics , Quackery, Pseudoarcheology, and Pseudohistory; articles in category "Pseudoscience" include Pathological Science , Voodoo Science, False Precision, List of Discredited Substances, Cargo Cult Science, Crank (person), Pseudomathematics, Pseudophilosophy, and Bunk Science. The category "Types of Science", which is a another subcategory of "Science", contains only three articles: Fringe Science, Junk Science, and Sound Science. By contemplating this maze of silly and redundant labels being applied by pubescent cyber-zealots and disinformation agents, one gets the full breadth of Wikipedia madness.

- Neutral Point of View (NPOV): This is the linchpin of Wikipedia ideology, equivalent to the old maoist 'correct party line'. But what is meant by it is not an accurate description of anything (idea, fact, event, opinion, etc), but the bias of the Wikipedia church, a bias that often resorts to falsifying ideas, facts, events, opinions, in the name of 'balancing viewpoints'. Most frequently, however, no balancing whatsoever takes place, as all that remains is the biased Wikipedia viewpoint masquerading as NPOV. Hence, NPOV in the hands of Wikipedia cabals is Absolute, not the result of constructive discussion or consensus. Admins and their roving cabals have all the cybertools needed to make that Absolute stick. To quote from the Wikipedia article on that topic:

"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [...] The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points."

- Template messages (tags): Over the years, Wikipedians have developed hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate banners that can be plastered on top of disagreeable articles for the purpose of warning humanity about the article's possible perniciousness, and of encouraging the populus at large to "improve" it, perform a "cleanup" on it, make it more "neutral", etc. To get an idea of the breadth and depth of this madness, take a look at the cleanup tags, disputed content tags, and the overview of all tags. In the wiki markup, templates are indicated by enclosing the specific name of the desired template in double braces, e.g. "{{cleanup}}" or "{{cleanup-nonsense}}"; the presence of such a construct in the wiki markup of the offending article inserts the full boilerplate banner into the HTML of said article .

- The Three-revert Rule (3RR): Here you have it:

"The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism).
Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. [Emphasis ours, we just couldn't resist. Fantastic stuff.]"

2. A mob of administrators and their allies: a study in the abuse of administrative powers and of the stated Wikipedia policy rules

1.1 On June 19, 2005, Dr. M. Askanas (under the User name "Helicoid") submitted to Wikipedia, in good faith, an entry on the topic of Aetherometry.   The entry strove to cogently explain the key aetherometric concepts and therefore was quite long. Taking a cue from Wikipedia guidelines, the author separated out some of the sections and made them into separate entries which were then referenced from the main entry. The presentation may well not have conformed to what Wikipedia calls Neutral Point of View (NPOV).  However, it was factual and accurate and written by a PhD in Mathematics who is indeed knowledgeable on the subject-matter of Aetherometry.  Dr. Askanas was initially quite ready to engage in any good-will collaboration that might be needed to adjust the entry to the Wikipedia framework.  But no good-will proposals ever ensued. Instead, the response to the submission was an instant formation of a witch-hunt mob, composed largely of people with Administrator privileges - a mob which, immediately and without foundation, cause, or even any knowledge of the subject matter, descended upon the entry and its author, and proceeded to mutilate the entry beyond sense or recognition, as well as to engage in a public campaign of slander and libel about the subject matter and its founders.  Many of these mutilations and slanderous statements will be documented below.

This reaction runs directly counter to Wikipedia's own rules, cardinal amongst them being an assumption of good faith on the part of the individual submitting the entry:

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules."

1.2 One of the first actions of this witch-hunt cabal was to summarily delete the content of all the sub-articles that were referenced from the main entry. This was done without actually reading any of the material, on the spurious "diagnosis" that these sub-articles duplicated the contents of the main entry. After this propitious start, the systematic mutilation of the entry and the falsification of its subject matter at the hands of the cabal continued through the subsequent weeks. An observer aptly described it as the work of " a handful of people who have taken it upon themselves to "improve" an article on a subject they know nothing about, are contemptuous about, and every time they make an "improvement" they falsify the subject, screw up the grammar so that the sentences don't make sense, introduce their own bias, etc.".

1.3 This falsification took on a fascistic bent as it progressed to routine suppression of information, repeated censorship of third party references, repeated deletion of dissenting participants' interventions, and even repeated deletions of any citations by competent scientists who have gone on record as having reviewed work in Aetherometry.  Every attempt was made to discredit not only the entry's subject matter and the work of the Correas or even their character, but anyone who might have commented positively on the subject. The aprioristic logic of the witch-hunt: "He's a witch, and therefore anybody who says otherwise must be a witch too".

1.4. Persistent attempts on the part of the original author of the entry and other contributors to counteract this ungoing falsification of the subject matter were denounced as "vandalism", and the entry would repeatedly be reverted, by an administrative action, to a properly mutilated state, and then locked (an administrative action which prevents edits by non-administrators) under the guise of 'protection from vandalism'.  In one grotesque instance an Administrator even made the mistake of locking the page at the wrong moment - after a de-falsifying edit; the oversight was soon spotted and was immediately 'remedied' (by the same Administrator) by momentarily unlocking the page, reverting it to a properly falsified version, and then locking it again.

The archival history of the Aetherometry entry in Wikipedia, and of other entries pertaining to "dissenting sciences", is full of instances of appalling intolerance and sheer malice. The records make it quite plain that a specific group of administrators is far more interested in behaving as malicious detractors of alternative science, than, as one participant wrote on the Autodynamics Talk page "as impartial thinkers trying to construct a balanced entry that could benefit the public." Is the Wikipedia project well served by such a demonstration of intolerance and mob mentality? Maybe it is - although, at first glance, there could hardly be a more serious defect in an aspiring encyclopedic project. We have heard it said that some unspecified "higher-up" Wikipedia administrators are aware of their failure, but are unwilling or unable to address the responsibility that goes with their power.  Perhaps this is so; meanwhile, however, and much to the contrary, the Administrators with whom we have come in contact seem to readily and freely abuse their power and treat it as a license to do as they please. The trajectory of the treatment undergone by the "Aetherometry" entry is, in its entirety, an example in point. Several days after the entry was placed in Wikipedia, a representative of the science-purification cabal submitted it to a "Vote for Deletion". A little swarm of Administrators and allied Users, none of whom evidenced any knowledge of Aetherometry or of the actual contents of the article, appeared out of nowhere to express their disgust with the subject matter and to vote for the deletion of the article. However, barely a few weeks later, after the entry had been multiply mutilated, reduced to a caricature and made into a vehicle of continuous slander, falsehood, and harassment, most of them reversed their vote and recommended that the entry be kept, for the sole purpose of using it to harm and denigrate the work of the Correas and that of their collaborators.

The following exchange (from the "Talk" page associated with the Aetherometry entry) between user "Karada" and a user logged on from IP 165.154.24.194, identifies some of the salient points in the entry's history:

Please, please, read the NPOV article again, and then read WP:NOT, in particular the part about verifiability. We have lots of articles on fringe beliefs, unconventional scientific theories, and alternative views in practically every sphere of human activity. Wikipedians are renowned for working with newcomers, and with people with opposing viewpoints, to create good articles. Instead of fighting the Wikipedia community, please ask yourself, "why is this not working in this case? How can I best address their requests to follow Wikipedia policies, and to work together to make this article better?" -- Karada, 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fighting the Wikipedia community? Who me? Nah; I'm just telling it like I see it. If Helicoid was a newcomer - which I assume, from the exchanges, she was - I don't see how she has been, or is being, "worked with". Read the record. And perhaps it is you - you, the seasoned Wikipedians who are so renowned for working with newcomers - that should ask yourselves "why is it not working in this case?" How in the world should I know why it's not working? All I see is a handful of people who have taken it upon themselves to "improve" an article on a subject they know nothing about, are contemptuous about, and every time they make an "improvement" they falsify the subject, screw up the grammar so that the sentences don't make sense, introduce their own bias, etc. So I would say to you: The reason it is not working is that you have never, for even a second, treated the original author or her contribution with any kind of respect - respect for the person's thought, respect for her subject matter, respect for her language, respect for her motivations. And respect is the prerequisite of "working together", no? -- 165.154.24.194, 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what working on a Wiki is like, until you are used to it, and learn Wikiquette and the other social mores needed to interact with other users. You are certainly right that working together requires some minimal mutual respect -- can we have some too, please? -- Karada

Sorry, you (as in your "we") are not going to get any from me. It's a bit late for that. But neither do you need any from me; I have no desire, and you have no need, for us to "work together". What are we supposed to work together on? As for Wikiquette, I have seen plenty of examples in action in you-all's treatment of Helicoid. Let's see... There's the "Please do not bite the newcomers" rule ("Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.") Has Helicoid been empowered? Did I miss the big Empowerment Event? Then there is the "Assume Good Faith" rule ("Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. ") Would you say that screaming "hoax", "brainwashing", "crank", "fanatic", "snake oil", is a manifestation of assuming good faith? If not, then when did this famous assuming take place? Then there is the "No legal threats" rule, in which one reads: "Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia." Wouldn't you say that calling a person's life's work "a hoax", insinuating that the person is lying about the scientific degrees she has, claiming that the person is a "snake oil vendor" - all without any basis, without any provocation, and on a very public forum - wouldn't you say that these are libel, slander and defamation of character? And you are calling on me to learn Wikiquette? -- 165.154.24.194

Pjacobi:

Here is an exchange (from the "Talk" page) in which Theresa Knott responds to a repeated challenge to provide actual references to mainstream scientists who supposedly reject the claims of Aetherometry. The challenger wrote:

"Well, Ms. Knott, I've provided my references and offered to provide more. Not one of your Wikipedians took me up on it. Now, you're Admin and per force responsible.Cite then the references you should provide for the detractors of Aetherometry? Who are they? What have they written? And in which peer-reviewed journals? The only detractors is this group of galivanting fat-bodies. now, they are not peers of anybody in science, are they? Are you? Where are the detractors? One single name or publication source will do. "

and Knott responded:

"I have a BSc Hons degree in physics from University College London. I removed the line about detractors. You are right, there aren't any detractors, the "theory" is completely unknown. No one in the scientific community has taken any notice of it whatsoever as far as I can tell." Theresa Knott, 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having thusly spoken, the prep-school marm immediately proceeded to make a revision to the article itself, replacing her previous claim about Aetherometry's "detractors" with yet another schoolmarmish gem in which she purports to speak for mainstream scientists; a grim joke:

                                                             23:26, 24 Jun 2005 Karada (pseudoscience)
                                                              23:28, 24 Jun 2005 Karada (let's not "Dr." people)
                                                             23:28, 24 Jun 2005 Karada (let's not "Dr." people)
                                                              20:48, 26 Jun 2005 Karada (rm "Dr": we don't do it for other people, either)
And from the Talk page:
* On Wikipedia, you must follow the NPOV principles, which do not amount to treating all views as equally valid [Candid admission!] . At the moment, all we can really say about Aetherometry is "a tiny number of people say X, their views contradict those of mainstream science, mainstream science has treated them with total disinterest  23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* From what I can see, almost all of the cited publications are either:

• published by Akronos Publications, which appears to be their own vanity press
• published in the magazine Infinite Energy, which seems dedicated to extremely alternative theories
• published in peer-reviewed Journals, but completely unrelated to Aetherometry
• patents (you can patent more or less anything; the patent inspection process does not in any way check if your invention is real, or even meaningful)
• press coverage (hey, even I've had press coverage; it's not difficult to get)

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

The last quote instantiates a favorite technique of administrative harassment observed repeatedly in the course of the epic saga of the Wikipedia Aetherometry article. Aetherometry was from the beginning openly and straighforwardly described, by all knowledgeable contributors, as a non-mainstream science. The harassment always proceeded like this:

(1) one member of the cabal asks for references to, say, experimental data, or to reviews of aetherometric research, etc;

(2) the asked-for references are provided by one of the "proponents" of Aetherometry;

(3) the same member of the cabal, or some other member, then triumphantly "discovers" that none of these references are to mainstream literature, presents this "discovery" as if he/she has just squashed a clever attempt at a hoax, and demands "genuine" references;

(4) it is pointed out by the "proponents", yet again, that Aetherometry is indeed, and has always been, by its pioneering nature, a non-mainstream science, and has to be evaluated by criteria proper to pioneering science;

(5) a day or two later, we go back to (1).

* I removed protoscience from the category [he means he removed Aetherometry from the category Protoscience], since protoscience is " to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory." (to quote the wikipedia definition. The scientific method require that experiments be reproducable [sic] and the standard practices of good science require at least publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aetherometry is a prime example of what is pseudoscience, and not protoscience. Oh and in case anyway wonders, Web of Science, which covers ~6000 scientific magazine and journals since 1974, does not report a single publication of aetherometery. Salsb, 5 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

So here we have a presumed scientist, a PhD, an assistant professor at Wake Forest University, who (under a pseudonym, of course) has no qualms about making public pronouncements about Aetherometry's supposed lack of 'adherence to the scientific method' - when he has not made the slightest effort to learn anything about Aetherometry and its employment of the scientific method (to which mainstream peer-review has been abusively appended), and has not a shred of evidence to justify his "conclusion".  This unfounded, unprovoked and libelous "judgement", delivered in obvious disregard of the very scientific method Salsbury spouts about - not to mention of even a minimum of scientific ethics - has no other justification than a clear and specific intent to inflict damage, to discredit not only the Correas and those directly involved with their research, but also the numerous courageous individuals who have publically commented on this body of work. And when called upon to support his freely-dispensed "judgement":

What evidence do you have that Aetherometry does not adhere to the scientific method, is not willing to be disproven by new evidence or supplanted by a more-predictive theory? [...] 216.254.160.187, 5 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Salsbury adds another falsification of the record:

The lack of even a single peer-reviewed report of any experiment. Salsb, 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

And here are someone's comment on this mangling, quoting the unmangled original:

* I see that the indefatiguable and multi-talented Connelley took it upon herself to actually edit, and emasculate, another person's comments. I thought editing another person's comments was a wikipedia "community" no-no. But since it is not, I will start happily practicing it. Meanwhile, here is the actual vote of the above user, before Connelley "edited" it to suit his fancy:

• Keep the original article (http://www.driftline.org/wikipediafascism/Aetherometry.html) and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo, 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Simply unbelievable how mr. connolley also is irresponsible. An administrator who censors a user's text and freely alters it because of an emotional reaction to the term wikipediafascism in the title? Wow, that's naked power! Where is the rule of law of this democracy that protects that user, the sameness in treatment, the no abuse of power?? Let's hear it! loud and clear, mr. connolley. Fascism, people, is how this kind of behavior was called in my young days. It is not Wikipedia that will change its meaning. Nor laws which will correct it. Only courage will. I propose that connolley do the right thing: muzzle himself and step down. Assume responsibility. i guess that he will not do that until someone will report him to the higher authorities. could one ask the anarchist to do this too, report connolley to the higher authorities? No factotum sharing? Just repugnant abuses of power! 209.29.93.65 04:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole. Delete. Natalinasmpf , 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that several days later, after the Aetherometry article was completely eviscerated by the cabal and rendered nonsensical, and the supporters of Aetherometry, including the author of the original entry, voted for its deletion, the cabal changed strategies and decided to vote to keep the entry. And our little man - or our minor - Natalinasmpf crossed out his own strident call to arms, after which it looked thusly:

Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole. Delete.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Here is more of the early Natalinasmpf:

Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia.

On the Talk page:
* [Aetherometry] only gets 4,000 google hits, most of which are repetitive advertising messages, reduced to 200. Looks like a commercial hoax and snake oil, to me. Get rid of it. Even if it was notable, this article does not speak in a neutral language, does not represent the scientific community, and severely undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia. Seems like a hoax for donations. 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* [To the presumed author of the entry:] Why would we want to harass you? Most notably oh wait, you're not a mindless slav - oh, I mean "employee" of the Correas are you, here to spread their corporate propaganda? (...) Other members do not have to be at the exact time to be represented, if things like vandalism and hoaxes are to be called, and that's what vfd's are for, and that's why I'm calling for one on this article. (...) You don't get my point. You can't cite the Correas work as a source, because I am disputing THEIR work (...) As soon as this theory gets into a copy of Nature, or something similar, then tell me that it has a source. (...) I bet WMC [William M. Connolley] could answer that for you, who has published numerous publications, who have been checked with scientific peer review (...) I bet open source doesn't fit you huh, little petit bourgeois? (...) You challenged my factual ignorance, and I responded by citing the concept of peer review, and by discounting YOUR sources. (...) You know what? I think this is nothing but a hoax and a fraud to gain false donations. I'm on the stage of reporting you people to the authorities immediately (...) 00:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the  Votes for Deletion:
* If you see the talk page, the original contributors seem to be brainwashed follo...oh sorry, I mean "employees" of the Correas, who are contributing material to this article, and with all the snazzy (but meaningless terms). -- 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In a hallucinatory addition to the article itself:
* However, this is generally rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience concerning energy applications, and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The concept itself, including "massfree energy" is a probable neologism which conflicts with quantum mechanics. The probable likelihood is that their research does not continue the contributions of Tesla and similar scientists at all. 00:23, 21 June 2005

On the Talk page:
* I'm on the verge of contacting the authorities to notify of fraud, anyone with me? The difference is this: the current state of the article, excluding the introduction, asserts its theories as truth, without considering the other theories. Its completely POV, and deletion is a possible solution. 21:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* I allege this is charlantry - and presented a vfd to discuss it. There's a very good argument, that if its charlantry, the stones deserve to be cast. 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* WMC [William M. Connolley] would agree with me that this article is certainly not factual, and seeing the great numbers of papers he has published...my relatives could be bothered, if this piece of pseudoscience was even notable 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* I have factual basis, Aetherometry, can't be true: this view being supported by the scientific community at large, and I already have given many reasons why its implausible, noting that it lacks peer review. Slander? Hardly. It is very likely a hoax, and trying to get the law on your side? Ironic, considering how this is a fraud and a scam to cheat donations. Oh, you address me wrongly. -- 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* [Concerning the subsections that were deleted by Connoley] That's an example of splitting articles up. However, the sheer non-notability of your scientific hoax doesn't seem to warrant that. 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A comment in the entry's History:
 * 21:41, 21 Jun 2005 Natalinasmpf (Yes, all of this is an extensive fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new science has backfired)

On the Talk page:
* Just because I am an anarcho-communist does not disqualify my edits if they are NPOV"; "WMC [William M. Connolley] and other contributors can vouch for me. (...) WMC would agree with me (June 24)

* At most I accused your beloved Correas of fraud - but that's not discrimination, that's just scientific skepticism. 21:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* Hmm WMC [William M Connolley], I think the best thing is the ignore this person, because obviously he can't seem to get the concept of what science is. I don't think the rest of the Wikipedian community will be too upset if we just ignore and revert his so called "contributions" to try to assert Aetherometry as established fact, and we can continue how to NPOV this along as normal.  20:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* As for civility, I'm not sure, there's very good reason to call it a hoax, but that's not being uncivil to users, more like.  02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* Even Theresa Knott, and many other admins have voiced contempt for the subject, and I think the onus is on you to cite actual verified evidence, not us. 01:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* Much more, questioning is needed to dissolve fascism, and prevent ignorance. Something that the Correas doesn't appear to be doing. 02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* The detractors, are named. Maybe you're accusing of weasel words - but then again, you hardly name any other supporters too - you claim engineers and medical scientists among other things have looked at it - but I have hardly seen any reliable sources (ie. not within the aetherometry website). Furthermore, even if I didn't have a degree, (a lot of Wikipedians do), that doesn't disqualify me any further. But if the Correas don't (and I'm questioning their degrees as frauds), then it makes AN ARTICLE BEING WRITTEN about their theories less notable.  02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* However, the Correas are not contributors, so why should it matter if I make an allegation on them? Furthermore, calling them cranks is not a personal attack: its simply a dose of healthy skepticism. And if you don't want to work with us, don't edit. However, if you do want to get your aetherometry theory fairly represented, then do work with us, and we'll work with you. (...) If I call a theory, or the Correas snake oil and snake oil vendors respectively, that's hardly not assuming good faith. 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* When these admins have a conspicuously clean record elsewhere in maintaining other scientific articles' (ie. tens of thousands), versus one little article here, I'm thinking the bias is not on them. 02:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


In Votes for Deletion:
* Its obviously impossible to have an intelligent article when every single pro-aetherometry fanatic and his or her acquaintances thinks he or she can substantiate a questionable theory about physics without having the slightest piece of evidence to cite....just look at the web pages of these "scientists". What a calamity! Its a brave new knowledge of the era founded by the Correas and all their snake oil vending! -- 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderfully rabid young retard! The ideal mouthpiece to hide behind. Zero need to back up a single of the libelous statements made - and a clear string of examples of Wikipedia as public toilet.

* Hi N. You (correctly I think) said don't respond to Helcoid but then got caught up again. Don't worry, no-one is taking her seriously, there is no point responding, and certainly not at length. IMHO. William M. Connolley 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

* You can always raise the issue of "personal attacks" at WP:AN/I [Administrator's Noticeboard: Incidents] or WP:RFC [Requests for Comments], especially if they persist or get especially vicious. No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Good job keeping cool in the face of provocation. Keep cool, do your best to ignore them and prove (as you have done quite well) that age is not the best indicator of maturity. Guettarda 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* Be careful - you are at risk of breaking the 3RR [Three-Revert Rule]. Guettarda 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. What he did was insert spiteful comments like changing "dectractors" into "detractors who have not read the material", so I assumed that could be called vandalism, and not violating the 3RR. -- Natalinasmpf 01:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing the personal attacks aren't covered by the 3rr, feel free to remove them. However, you also reverted other material. The matter has been raised by pjacobi on WP:AN/I - other people will get involved. It isn't the end of the world if things stand for a few minutes. I don't want you to get yourself blocked. Be patient. Guettarda 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And here's our minor himself, reacting to Helicoid's quoting of the above snippets on the Aetherometry Talk page:

* You're being unreasonable. I can't contribute because I'm "underage"? The talk was never "backroom", by the way, what, if I make a request for arbitration and RFC, that would be backroom too? Apparently you haven't seen the administrator's noticeboard. They are all avenues for discussion, not "backroom" talk. -- Natalinasmpf 02:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the existence of these 'avenues for discussion' is never revealed to newcomers who have made the mistake of - in good faith -  contributing material to Wikipedia. And they do, in fact, constitute layers upon layers of labyrinthic backrooms of which only those who make Wikipedia their lives are aware, and where they seem to spend virtually all their waking hours.  Like in the tale of the sorcerers' apprentice, a malicious discussion which a newcomer imagines is being conducted on one page, suddenly balloons out, to be continued (unbeknownst to the newcomer) on - who knows how many?? - other pages, all labeled with indecipherable Wikipedian acronyms recognizable only to the inner circles of Wikipedia devotees.  But like the Talk pages associated with articles, these pages are search-engine indexed, and may now, suddenly, pop up on search engine results - propagating gratuitious slander ad infinitum.  Wikipedians know full well that search-engines will find their malicious comments - and relish the fact that they are employing Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicly air their attacks as well as their promotions:

* [From the Aetherometry Talk page:] OK, the Google spider did its job and our article is now indexed, in the moment it's the 4th hit when searching for "Aetherometry". Now we should better fulfill our noble mission. -- Pjacobi, June 28, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 

The second example comes from Karada's User Talk page, again under the title "Helicoid":

* I see you've encountered Helicoid. I don't know how to proceed with him, because he's engaging in trolling behaviour, personal attacks, violation of the NPOV policy, rejection of the concept of peer review, and a whole host of other things. Seeing as you just came upon it, what is your view? -- Natalinasmpf, 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he goes on escalating in this way, he's likely to get banned by an admin. However, I must recuse myself from doing it, because I'm involved in editing the article, and by extension, in the controversy.

If he just treads water, a Request for Comments might be appropriate. If he really won't stop being abusive, shout for an admin, and one will generally magically appear. If not, let me know, and I'll see how I can help. -- Karada, 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The third example comes from the User Talk page of William M. Connolley. Title: "It only gets worse":

* If you want to increase your Wiki pain, I suggest these candidates for your watch list:

• Aetherometry
• Aetherometric Technologies
• Experimental Aetherometry
• Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity

Pjacobi 18:59, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Sigh. Still (in pursuit of the sanity of wiki and the promotion of science not non-science) I'm prepared to try to help. It would be nice if the admins were prepared to help by applying the 3RR rule... there is some curious reluctance there that I simply don't understand. My suggestions:

Create a "complete and utter b*ll*cks" tag: "this article is total twaddle; having said that, we're prepared to let the wackos have their say: read on at your peril..." and then leave the rest of it alone. Fun, but... that sort of article really needs to be...

Put them up for VFD

Make certain articles only editable by registered users. Is this possible? It might help.

William M. Connolley 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I've been bold. I've made the last 3 into redirects to the first. It looks to me like these are just commercial spam, anyway.

It IS commercial spam, and probably snake oil too, and pseudoscience...it reminds me of all the "activated oxygen" links you find on google, and conspiracy theories about no landing on Mars. I'm going to put it up on vfd. I'm normally an inclusionist, but this article would well undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia, and we also do not need more ignorance and corporate propaganda being thrust onto the masses. -- Natalinasmpf 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* I give up. I've tried reasoning with some of the Aetherometry supporters, but obviously they think my "disputes of validity of the theory are not substantial", and they think their (indirect citation) of sources of Tesla and Reich is far more valid than peer review. -- Natalinasmpf 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't give up. We need people to keep wiki sane. But also, don't expect too much (as I perhaps did over GW [Global Warming]). Just because you're right doesn't mean your views will prevail... come and help at Nikola Tesla. William M. Connolley 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Hmm, Helicoid now proceeds to go around to everyone who disagrees with him/her, and labelling them a "mao-mao", even to me, which is incredibly ironic given my views. He or she thinks that criticism of the reliability/validity of a scientific theory is censorship. Should I try explaining this, or will it just not be worth it? -- Natalinasmpf 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This coaching of a minor to have him be the standard-bearer that gets the flak is particularly insidious.  Witness how, elsewhere on the same webpage, Connolley insinuates that the Correas are not scientists, allaying the fears of potential injustice in the mind of the minor with incorrigible lies about the nature of scientific disputes and about the courage which the Correas have shown in defending themselves openly from other such attacks by ignorant, misinformed and malicious people. This exchange bears the title "An inquiry on the communication protocols of the scientific community":

* I was reading [...] the supposed rebuttal to DeMeo's claims by the Correas, and I was rather...shocked. Do competing scientists always react to each other's works in this way? I assumed that those holding significant degrees would have been selected for civility tendencies and courtesy, and there was a fair degree of civil protocol in the scientific community. I'm just wondering if this kind of mudslinging is commonplace, (as I have never witnessed it to this extent before), or it's something only confined to the Correas and their critics. Noting that probably half the language would probably not be something eligible as a legal document, I always thought that even scientists with opposite views, competing projects et al always treated each other cordially and while criticising each other's work (as any good peer reviewer would do) at every turn, I always assumed that personal attacks were out of bounds. I'm just confirming that this is something confined to the Correas right, and not the rest of the scientific community, I hope? -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)  

You say the Correas ... and not the rest of the scientific community and I think the mistake you're making is to think that the C's *are*  part of the sci community. What evidence is there for this? They claim a Phd - they may even have one, but from where and for what? -   but you don't put your credentials on a paper. In scientific   journals everyone is always polite, of course, with only a very few   exceptions. William M. Connolley  2005-07-0119:02:10 (UTC).

The fourth example comes from the History record associated with the Aetherometry article, and shows just a short snippet of the tag-team alterations implemented by the cabal - with the Singaporean minor eagerly in the forefront - always with the objective of reviling, demeaning, slandering, libeling Aetherometry, of mutilating facts, and creating, out of thin air, false facts, false statements, imaginary allegations, in a word, lies, Wikipedia lies.  One could swear one was dealing with the Stasi. Note also the presence of warning banners (the Aetherometry article has, in the course of its history, experienced a large variety of them), in this case "{{OriginalResearch}}" and "{{Cleanup}}".

Revision as of 03:08, 21 June 2005 216.254.162.101 Older edit		Revision as of 03:08, 21 June 2005 Evil Monkey Reverted edits by 216.254.162.101 to last version by Evil Monkey Newer edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	{{OriginalResearch}}		{{OriginalResearch}}
-	Article deleted by its sole author. No need to vote any further.	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a controversial concept developed by [[Paulo Correa|Dr. Paulo N. Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa|Alexandra N. Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that ''replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of [[Nikola Tesla|N. Tesla]],
		+	[[Louis, 7th_duc_de_Broglie|L. de Broglie]], [[Wilhelm Reich|W.Reich]] and
		+	[[Rene Thom|R. Thom]] and [[Harold Aspden|H. Aspden]] concerning '''massfree energy'''. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]] concerning [[energy]] applications, and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The concept itself, including "massfree energy" is a probable [[neologism]], which conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]]. The probable likelihood is that their research does not continue the contributions of Tesla and similar scientists at all.
		+

Revision as of 13:36, 21 June 2005 TTLightningRod ← Older edit		Revision as of 21:37, 21 June 2005 Natalinasmpf commenting out the so called "concepts" until I can NPOV (read: totally rebut and dismantle their arguments) it Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{cleanup}}		{{cleanup}}
-	'''Aetherometry''' is a controversial concept developed by [[Paulo Correa|Dr. Paulo N. Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa|Alexandra N. Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that ''replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of [[Nikola Tesla|N. Tesla]],	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that ''replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials are probably [[dubious]].

Revision as of 21:38, 21 June 2005 Natalinasmpf formatting ← Older edit		Revision as of 21:41, 21 June 2005 Natalinasmpf Yes, all of this is an extensive fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new science" has backfired Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{cleanup}}		{{cleanup}}
-	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials are probably [[dubious]].	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials are probably [[fraud]].

Revision as of 21:41, 21 June 2005 Natalinasmpf Yes, all of this is an extensive fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new science" has backfired ← Older edit		Revision as of 22:48, 21 June 2005 Dragons flight rm criticism of PhD, see talk. Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{cleanup}}		{{cleanup}}
-	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials are probably [[fraud]].	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]].

Revision as of 23:00, 21 June 2005 GangofOne Books ← Older edit		Revision as of 23:05, 21 June 2005 Natalinasmpf doesn't exclude them from possible (and most likely) charlatantry Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{cleanup}}		{{cleanup}}
-	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]].	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]] concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]], and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The very concept of Aetherometry has shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. There has been significant attempts by the Correas to gain followers for what they term as a "new [[scientific discipline": however, this is most likely [[charlatan|charlatantry]].

standard disclaimer ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:44, 24 June 2005 Pjacobi shortened intro, removed POV Newer edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	Deleuze]]. Other influences include		Deleuze]]. Other influences include
	Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and the new-energy pioneer		Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and the new-energy pioneer
-	Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]], who verified many of the Correas' inventions and	+	Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]].
-	became their intimate friend.	+

Revision as of 16:21, 24 June 2005 Natalinasmpf NPOV? we have to represent the scientific community, who deserve to be represented as mainstream science ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:39, 24 June 2005 William M. Connolley I don't think it true to say that mainstream science opposes this gumpf - it just ignores it. Kirlian photo, etc, aren't subfields of science - they are non science. Newer edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
-	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative scientific theories, which range over many scientific fields, ( such as [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial subfields, such as orgonomy,	+	'''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]] coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their alternative theories, which range over many scientific fields, ( such as [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial fields, such as orgonomy,
	Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted by conventional science,		Kirlian photography, aether theories, alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted by conventional science,
-	and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are interpretations of their work, and not necessarily what would be their views. Other influences include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]. However, this theory has met strong opposition from the [[scientific community]], who also note that often such theories lack [[peer review]], and allege such a theory as [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]].	+	and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are interpretations of their work, and not necessarily what would be their views. Other influences include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]. However, this theory has largely been ignored as irrelevant by the [[scientific community]]. Often such theories lack [[peer review]] and may be [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]].

Next:  THE WAYS & MEANS OF THE SCIENCE-PURIFICATION CABAL AT WIKIPEDIA
Previous:  ANTI-WIKIPEDIA