Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a

.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Cold fusion is a fringe topic

, and algorithm modeled on an idea borrowed from academia: the source cited (or page linked to) most often is probably the most authoritative.

Pcarbonn has used Wikipedia for advocacy

Others have presented evidence that Pcarbonn has engaged in

fringe theory

.

• Pcarbonn states that he is engaged in ideological struggle on Wikipedia. [1]
• A cold fusion advocate confirms that Wikipedia has been used to enhance the field's reputation. [2]
• Diffs cited by ScienceApologist in a recent ANI thread:
  • Uses Pioneer anomalie to confuse the discussion; argues for inclusion of non-reliable sources.
  • "Pons is a respected scientist"
  • Stonewalling or wikilawyering
  • "You have not demonstrated that cold fusion is the minority view in reliable, published sources. Please note the quality of the publishers in the list above."
  • Asserts that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy. No plausible reading of the reliable sources would come to that conclusion.
  • Mischaracterizes what a source says.
  • "CF papers have been published in the top third of all journals." No reliable journals are publishing these papers.
• Spinning Cold fusion: [3][4][5]
• Spillover to other articles: [6][7][8]

Pcarbonn has been warned

Pcarbonn has received feedback about editing problems on multiple occasions. In addition to the noticeboard discussions linked in the request for arbitration, I found these diffs from his talk page relevant:

• Verifiability of content: [9][10][11][12]
• NPOV: [13]
• Pseudoscience warning: [14]
• WP:NPA warning: [15]
• Userpage soapboxing: [16]
• Advice to diversify interests: [17]

ScienceApologist has good intentions, but faulty methods

ScienceApologist disputes the presentation of much of this evidence, there are some presentations which are faulty and others which are based on ignorance. However, there is no cross-examination allowed in arbitrations. Please contact User:ScienceApologist via e-mail for his side of most of these characterizations.

ScienceApologist has been under ArbCom restrictions against incivility per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted and using multiple accounts Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist limited to one account. These restrictions are set to expire 2008-11-19.

Disruptive editing

He has violated decorum or engaged in pointy behavior much too frequently.

• SA's posts to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion are neither calm, nor particularly helpful toward resolving the dispute.
• Edit warring on
  WP:FRINGE: warning
• Canvassing: warning
• Editing Elonka Dunin after User:Elonka placed him under a topic ban.[18][19][20] warning from Morven warning from Avruchremark by Newyorkbrad
• Continue editing of Elonka Dunin after warnings: [21][22][23]

Valuable contributions

On other occasions, SA has provided valuable input, helped enforce NPOV, and helped discourage sock puppetry:

• Removing unverified or poorly sourced content: [24]
• Removing linkspam: [25]
• Barnstar given by me for helping stop sock puppetry: [26]

Many more productive diffs can be found, but I will not overload the page.

Use of multiple accounts

There are also concerns that SA may have used multiple accounts to evade scrutiny, resulting in a stern warning from User:Lar. [27] SA filed an MfD on the checkuser request, which was courtesy blanked. I have linked to the last revision prior to blanking. Hopefully that won't get me banned, but I think this information is highly relevant to the present discussion. Though some folks view me as a supporter of SA, I have checkusered him on three occasions.

Disruption of ban discussion, which lead to this request for arbitration

When the recent thread at

When ScienceApologist added inflammatory remarks, the discussion quickly deteriorated towards a non-result.

• Attacks the mediator: [29]
• Antagonizing other editors, personal attacks: [30][31][32]
• "Pathological hooey": [33]

This was the proximate cause of my filing this request for arbitration. Had SA stayed away from that thread, I believe it would have come to a proper resolution one way or the other.

Pattern of behavior and prior attempts at resolution

These are not an isolated incidents. When SA loses his cool, he tends to disrupted discussions with shrill rhetoric and accusations presented without evidence.

• Off the cuff remarks that Twoggle should be banned: [34][35]
• Accuses me and Elonka of stalking: [36]

I have tried every possible way I know of to encourage SA to focus on productive contributions and refrain from disruption. Unfortunately, I and other editors have not been completely successful yet. Here are just a few sample diffs:

• Advice on toning down the rhetoric: [37]
• Be calm, be careful: [38][39][40]
• Attempt at mentorship with
  User:AGK and User:Fritzpoll: [41][42][43]

Kirk shanahan has engaged in COI editing

single purpose account

that engages in the advocacy against cold fusion.

• Apparent COI editing, citing K. Shanahan: [44][45][46][47] (30 October 2008)
• Editing has continued up until 31 October 2008 on Cold fusion [48] and until 3 November 2008 on Talk:Cold fusion

Disruption to articles can be caused without editing the articles themselves

As seen on the similar homeopathy case, a single editor can disrupt articles even if he never edits the actual article. It's just enough that he wikilawyers on the talk page about interpretation of sources. Bringing again and again the same studies will tire out all neutral editors who have better things to do.

No adequate tools to deal with this

The community does not have adequate tools to fend off the above behaviour, so it all depends on individual hard-boiled editors who have to basically kick the POV pushers out of the talk page in unfashionable but effective ways, like I had to do myself here and here, so they won't scare neutral editors out of the page.

The real point of this case: are cold fusion's walled-gardens representative of scientific consensus or are they fringe

Mind you, Pcarbonn is way lees disruptive than Dana, and he actually raises good points: should the peer-reviewed meta-reviews published at journals where only cold fusion proponents edit be considered reliable sources? Can they be used to indicate scientific consensus or are they just walled gardens that should be considered as fringe sources? See Vesal's statement for a better explanation.

The problem will solve itself by clarifying if we take walled-gardens seriously as part of mainstream scientific consensus, or if we take them as a fringe escission from consensus.

Note: Cold fusion is probably just one of the scientific disciplines where the walled gardens are bigger and more reputable-looking, that's why it has reached arbitration first. I suppose that more will pop up over time, although I can't pin-point a specific field.

Published reliable sources on the subject indicate an ongoing scientific controversy

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers".

Here is what the most reliable sources say according to this ranking and

:

1a books published in University press:

Negative: Park, Robert (2000), Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513515-6

Favorable: Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors (2008), Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

Favorable: Storms, Edmund (2007), Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, Singapore: World Scientific, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8

1b primary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Too many to cite, even if we limit ourselves to the top third of journals by impact factor. Mix of favorable and skeptical articles. See bibliography in our article, or D. Britz bibliography.

1c secondary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Favorable : Biberian, Jean-Paul (2007), "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion): An Update" (PDF), International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology '3 (1): 31–43, doi:

doi:10.1504%2FIJNEST.2007.012439

,

The 2004 DOE report and other less reliable sources, including magazines such as PhysicsToday cited by JzG below, also indicate an ongoing scientific controversy. See Ranking of sources per reliability and our CF article. The author of the leading skeptic book cited above, Bob Park, recently said that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'. This was published in Chemistry world, i.e. not a journal dedicated to cold fusion.[49]

Favorable articles have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals that are not dedicated to cold fusion

The peer-reviewed journals that have published favorable articles on cold fusion are not dedicated to cold fusion, and are not at the bottom of the Impact Factor list, but in the top third or better, overall or within their category. These are further indication that the scientific controversy is ongoing. Here is what I found on the ISI website with some links to articles:

• Natuurwissenchaften:[50][51][52] 7th among 50 journals in the MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES category. Impact factor: 1.955
• International Journal of Hydrogen:[53] 8th among 32 journals in the PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL. Impact factor: 2.725
• Surface & Coatings technology:[54] 31st among 94 journals in PHYSICS, APPLIED. Impact factor: 1.678
• Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry:[55] 21st among 70 journals in CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL. Impact factor: 2.580

The lowest impact factor of these, 1.678, is in the 2291st place overall, just a shade below one third overall (6417 journals in total --> 1/3 = 2139) So, these journals should be seen as reliable and notable enough for wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A neutral reading of the 2004 DOE report shows that the controversy is not settled

There is a disagreement on whether the 2004 DOE report indicates an ongoing controversy. Here is what it actually says:

Conclusion of section 1 : Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

Conclusion of section 2 :The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.

Conclusion of section 3 : The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.

Final conclusion : While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles." (Wikipedia:About)

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on." [56]

"Content hosted in Wikipedia is not Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." [57]

I have always encouraged the writing of a section on the controversy itself

The to-do list for cold fusion includes "add a summary from the "philosophy of science" perspective, e.g based on Lewenstein (p. 13-18)", a point which I have added myself.[58]. Lewenstein looks at the controversy on cold fusion to find out how science is actually practised.

As User:Eubulides says below, the literature about the cold fusion controversy is separate from the scientific litterature on cold fusion, and provides a different, usefull perspective on the sociological aspects of this scientific topic, and of how science is practised. Having not read this literature in detail, I do not feel qualified to write such a summary. I do know however that the demarcation problem between science and non-science is not resolved, and that the literature on the cold fusion controversy is similarly equivocal. In my view, there is no basis for the view that the sociological controversy should be presented but the scientific one shouldn't. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Today is not the most authoritative source on the subject

Google Search returns results adapted to its user, if it knows him. When I log out of Google and search for "cold fusion", the top result that I get is our wikipedia article.

It is not the Physics Today article, as Jehochnan suggests. The article that he considers "probably the most authoritative" is a news article. Here is what

has to say : "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." Their reporting of the 2004 DOE report is the perfect example of that. It should not be considered as the most reliable source.

The current version is the result of many editors

I have never been blocked, for

this controversial article. Those who want to criticize my edits should use diffs, not the current version of the article or of its lead.

I have never deleted a skeptical source (I have actually added several [59][60][61][62][63][64]) We may have missed some skeptical, reliable sources, but it is unlikely in view of the many editors who have contributed to the article.

Who ever said that Wikipedia need to represent the mainstream ??

SA has proposed a

guideline.

He says : "Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts. To accomplish this goal, reliable sources need to be used to verify content." I fully support that. I'm puzzled as to why, when such experts actually meet to review cold fusion, such as the 2004 DOE panel, he is the first one to censor or modify what they say, arguing that it would be POV-pushing.(e.g., just in November: [65][66][67][68]) Surely, such experts would be pleased if we were to quote their report verbatim.

The reason becomes clear in the next sentence in his proposed guideline. He says "Beyond this, it is also necessary that subjects be handled as they are realized in the mainstream." This is very dubious. First of all, "mainstream" is a WP:Weasel word that does not refer to reliable, verifiable source. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that such "mainstream" handles the topic in a way "that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of expert".

What are the evidence for his view ? Here are some possible meaning for the word "mainstream":

• Mainstream = "what most scientists think". "Most scientists" cannot be a
  WP:reliable
  source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most scientists" are WP:Weaseled statements that are not truly verifiable. So, there is no basis for requiring wikipedia to represent the view of most scientists.
• Mainstream = "view expressed in news article". Again, these are not the most reliable sources. See my comment above on Physics Today.

I welcome any supporting evidence that his proposed guideline on "mainstream" is not contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

I used to design

article that has the effect of ennobling cold fusion and giving the field greater credibility than would be supported by the Physics World article should be considered as editing against the consensus. And a refusal to conform with that consensus view should be considered as disruptive.

I find, based on my review of others’ statements regarding Pcarbonn’s past behavior and based on my brief interaction with him here on his talk page, that he is an advanced amateur with no first-hand experience in cold fusion. He says he has spoken with researchers, which I believe, but given the reality of the situation, those who are currently working on cold fusion should be considered as operating on the fringes of science (“out in left field” in many cases). The evidence for Pcarbonn’s basic grasp of scientific fundamentals at this point is sketchy and elusive so I have little to go on, but I find his arguments for being pro-CF to be less than persuasive.

What is absolutely clear to me from reading the many complaints on this page is that we can not have individual editors with advocacy points of view deciding for themselves what certain scientific papers mean (it’s fun to think we’re all Johnny Quest) and edit fringe-science articles in a manner that flouts what the most reliable sources have concluded on the subject. Such behavior necessarily slants the articles until they no longer present a proper and balanced view of the subject matter. Doing so also unfairly puts other editors at a disadvantage because they must read and and interpret and try to understand what the scientific papers are really saying if they are to even begin debating the fringe advocate. Besides, in many cases it’s all a vain effort; based on my interactions with Pcarbonn, it is absolutely impossible to logically argue with some of these editors. In Pcarbonn’s case, he raised a point on his talk page about his basic motivations and I showed him how there were infinitely superior means to accomplish that end. Then he raised a technical point about radium. It made zero technical sense whatsoever and I soundly refuted that one. Then he asked a rhetorical question about government funding and another editor, Verbal, pointed out how the truth was self-evident in what I had previously written. Pcarbonn’s response to all of this? He simply dismissed everything we had been discussing (points he raised) as irrelevant and stated that none of it should prevent him from presenting the “scientific evidence in the scientific controversy.” *Sigh*.

Pcarbonn is cherry picking snippets of scientific articles in order to present a pro-CF picture. This amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Further, his circuitous and evasive nature effectively makes it so his arguments aren’t falsifiable, and, thus, he can not be reasoned with in a scientific sense. It is my personal believe that if Pcarbonn does not quickly conform to the basic desires of those who have brought this complaint, that he be quickly and decisively dealt with. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. In Evidence presented by JzG, below, JzG provides some excellent examples of how “there’s lies, damned lies, and misrepresenting and cherry picking scientific papers.” JzG cuts straight to the heart of what pro-CF editors like Pcarbonn are doing. I can also see that ScienceApologist has gotten discouraged and withdrawn his post (and stated he is leaving Wikipedia for good) as a result of what he feels are mischaracterized personal attacks against him by Jehochman. Having ScienceApologist pull out of Wikipedida entirely would be most unfortunate. My hope is that he has just gotten all pissy and is on a pout right now and will change his mind after there is a proper disposition of this arbitration.

  I do hope the arbiters will review and consider ScienceApologist’s evidence here before he withdrew it. As ScienceApologist pointed out, there are many other Wikipedia articles like Homeopathy and Water fluoridation controversy that suffer from this “Pcarbonn phenomenon” and ScienceApologist has been working valiantly to ensure those articles reflect what reliable sources say about the subjects. We just don’t want valuable editors like these to become so darned discouraged.

  I earnestly urge the arbiters here to rapidly and permanently ban Pcarbonn from from Cold fusion. Note that in my statement on the request for arbitration, I initially defended Pcarbonn. I had (and have) no axe to grind here. After digging into the facts after that initial post and after limited direct dealings with Pcarbonn, it has become abundantly clear to me that Pcarbonn has a faith-based view of CF and doesn’t sufficiently understand the fundamental basics of science (or writes in a way that unfortunately makes it it appear that he doesn’t). He degrades the quality of our Cold fusion article..

  Speaking to a bigger issue: Wikipedia should look into the development of a new procedure or mechanism that would enable us to rapidly and decisively deal with editors like Pcarbonn, wherever they be on Wikipedia. We can’t have other editors like ScienceApologist leaving in disgust. And I really don’t understand why there should be so much aggravation-type water under the bridge and so much of everyone’s time spent in formal proceedings like this just to deal with a single editor who continually edits contrary to reliable sources. In America, they do have court administrators who can exercise judge-style powers in straightforward issues so you don’t have to resort to a full jury trial for clear-cut abuses. I’m rather pleased though, that we are going “full formal” with regard to Pcarbonn since what transpires here may well be the subject of another write-up on New Energy Times, News. So let’s dispatch this case with the administrative equivalent of powdered wigs and then try to find a way to streamline this process for the future. Wikipedia will be better off for the effort.

  Open letter to ScienceApologist: I’m not so sure the arbiters will consider withdrawn evidence. Why don’t you do the following: 1) restore your evidence, and 2) simply invite Jehochman to “do something to himself that isn’t generally considered to even be physically possible” or some other such glancing insult. A little venting can be therapeutic at times. Greg L (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community

I searched Google Scholar for peer-reviewed literature about the cold fusion controversy (as opposed to the scientific literature on cold fusion itself), and found that the articles uniformly considered cold fusion to be fringe. Here are all the recent sources I found that devoted a substantial amount of space to the topic:

• Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 44 (13): 1916–22.
  doi:10.1002/anie.200462084
  . So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.
• Little M (2006). "Expressing freedom and taking liberties: the paradoxes of aberrant science". Med Humant. 32 (1): 32–7.
  doi:10.1136/jmh.2004.000205
  . It took two years for the cold fusion episode to be laid to rest. There are still scientists and technology companies that retain an interest in the Pons and Fleischman work. Eventually, it was decided that what Pons and Fleischman had achieved was no more than a variation of a well known phenomenon, which could not be scaled up to provide a usable energy source.
• Ackermann E (2006). "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: a publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion". Scientometrics. 66 (3): 451–65.
  doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0033-0
  . The epidemic rate of growth is ultimately unsustainable however and dies out once the initial discovery fails to be confirmed or is otherwise found wanting by the scientific community. Two of the more famous examples of unsuccessful information epidemics are Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion.

I also found a review of a university-press book that might be helpful, though I have read only the book review, not the book itself. Here's the citation to the book review:

• Yang A (2006). "Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies [book review]". Nova Religio. 9 (3): 133–4.
  doi:10.1525/nr.2006.9.3.133
  . Part Two is more empirical, and focuses on what are often called 'pathological sciences' such as research into N rays, polywater, and cold fusion ('pathological' because these have been dismissed by mainstream science) ...

and here is the book:

• Bauer HH (2004). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press.
  ISBN 0-252-07216-2
  .

Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above, Pcarbonn wrote "there is no basis for the view that the sociological controversy should be presented but the scientific one shouldn't". I agree with this, but adding a sociological-controversy section to Cold fusion was not the intent in mentioning these sources. The intent was to find whether recent peer-reviewed sources about the controversy consider cold fusion to be fringe. Lewenstein 1994 (PDF), the source Pcarbonn mentioned on this topic, is neither recent nor peer-reviewed. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling out of arbitration...

There exists "evidence" presented by Jehochman that flagrantly mischaracterizes me. If we cannot come to an agreement on how to present it, I will leave Wikipedia for good.

]

Evidence presented by Olorinish

I have edited the cold fusion page and its talk page many times over the past 1.5 years (sometimes as 209.253.120.204, 209.253.120.158, 209.253.120.198, or 209.253.120.205, before I decided to log in for every edit), and have disagreed with Pcarbonn on many issues.

Like many others, I support a temporary topic ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion page because of his frequent POV-pushing (see examples below).

I think his comments about "winning the battle of cold fusion" should carry very little weight. Wikipedia authorities should judge editors on the quality of their edits and their arguments, not their opinions.

In contrast, I do not support a ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion talk page. I believe he honestly wants to improve wikipedia, and I think wikipedia should establish a precedent that editors will not be banned from discussing articles because they make poor edits, except in more extreme cases than this. In general, the way to counteract POV problems is to increase the number of editors looking at an issue, not limit it. Olorinish (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarbonn has pushed the pro-cold fusion POV

Regarding two articles he wanted to mention: [69] [70]

When describing "replication" of cold fusion: [71]

By redundantly over-promoting the potential benefits of cold fusion: [72]

By removing a mainstream journal article (Hutchinson) critical of cold fusion: [73]

By calling a blog post favoring cold fusion more significant than articles in Physics Today and Discover critical of cold fusion: [74] [75]

Comment on Pcarbonn's section on pro-CF articles in respected journals

I think people should be aware that none of the four journals Pcarbonn mentioned above frequently report on the field of nuclear reactions, or fields close to it. The "multidisciplinary" Natuurwissenchaften reports almost exclusively on biology topics. Olorinish (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe advocacy

Cold fusion (CF) is a fringe field which has been subject to advocacy, including from clearly conflicted editors such as JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), webmaster of the pro-CF website lenr-canr.org.

Examples include [76] where the conclusion of the 2004 DoE review (that little has changed) is "balanced" by a cherry-picked sentence from the middle of the review stating that "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV." and misrepresented as if it were a part of the conclusion, which it is not. This phrase is pretty empty, in fact, since I would challenge to to find any area of scientific research where any government funding body would do anything but encourage "individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues" relevant to any question of any importance at all. The conclusion is that nothing has changed since 1989. And that is a very serious blow to the CF researchers, who want to present this as an emerging field.

Article status

Largely as a result of the activities of these individuals, Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was demoted from FA in January 2006, and has at least twice been reverted to the FA version to roll back extensive abusive advocacy. Featured article status requires extensive peer-review, and the FA version was an accurate reflection of the mainstream view, according to a friend of mine who is a full professor at an English university and was in one of Fleischmann's labs in 1989, taking some part in the experiments. So, the FA version is my personal benchmark for neutrality on this subject.

As a point of principle I do not think we should apply Good Article to articles where content is still a matter of heated dispute, as GA does not really address the quality of the article (far too few people are involved in reviewing the content), only conformance to manual of style. I also think that a defensible maintenance tag (e.g. neutrality, balance) should automatically result in removal of GA status.

Conspicuous failure of mediation

The article was the subject of a lengthy mediation. By virtue of having more time to spend and more obsessive interest in the subject, Pcarbonn was the major author of the resultant content. Instead of reining in a tendentious editor, mediation actively enabled the skewing of content towards a fringe view. I believe this is a conspicuous failure of the mediation process and should be investigated in detail by the mediation committee and arbitration committee.

The mainstream view

Physics Today is a mainstream publication and discussions there largely reflect the mainstream view. [77] shows that before the DoE review people were fair (as was the FA version WP article) in acknowledging that cold fusion is not so much an imaginary phenomenon as one which lacks significant support due to fundamental evidential and scientific weaknesses. Note the lead to that article: "Whether outraged or supportive about DOE's planned reevaluation of cold fusion, most scientists remain deeply skeptical that it's real".

"The critical question is, How good and different are [the cold fusion researchers'] new results?" says Allen Bard, a chemist at the University of Texas at Austin. "If they are saying, 'We are now able to reproduce our results,' that's not good enough. But if they are saying, 'We are getting 10 times as much heat out now, and we understand things,' that would be interesting. I don't see anything wrong with giving these people a new hearing." In ERAB's cold fusion review in 1989, he adds, "there were phenomena described to us where you could not offer alternative, more reasonable explanations. You could not explain it away like UFOs."

— DoE Warms To Cold Fusion, Physics Today, April 2004

But the DoE report clearly showed that the necessary condition we understand things is not met. This is the main finding of the DoE review, to my reading, that without getting the basic science right and proposing a credible mechanism by which the effect can work, they will not get what they want.

How did Physics Today cover the hotly contended issue of the DoE review? The same author wrote as follows:

Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.

— Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore, Physics Today January 2005

Now, I would invite the arbitrators to review the current article and Pcarbonn's contributions and see how consistent they are, on the specific issue of the interpretation of the DoE review, with that mainstream (read: pro-

) interpretation. That is, I think, the crucial issue here. As an aside, I would note that quoting the above paragraph in the article was resisted to an almost hysterical degree by the CF advocates, and indeed this summary of the Physics Today article on the DoE review is not quoted in the article as it stands today.

Pcarbonn's assertion that "most scientists" amounts to unverifiable

to give Wikipedia a clear idea of how the DoE report (a primary source) was received by the mainstream scientific community and should therefore be described by us. Mainstream sources will only very occasionally revisit fields which have been identified as rejected, unless there is major new work and we (Wikipedia) will only know if such changes in view have happened when there are overview articles in mainstream journals which tell us that the dominant view has shifted. Looking at articles by prominent holdouts is actively unhelpful because they are holdouts, their view cannot be held to support or deny the mainstream acceptance of that view. And this is a very common problem in articles on fringe subjects - advocates for the fringe view will pile up huge numbers of quotes from advocates in order to try to swamp the documented fact that the field's dominant thesis is generally regarded as unproven or even outright false.

The central questions in respect of Pcarbonn seem to me to be:

1. Does the Wikipedia content square with the fact, documented in an overview article in a mainstream and widely-read journal, that the claims of the cold fusion advocates are "no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago", and is Pcarbonn's editing and advocacy in line with that, as required by
   WP:UNDUE
   .
2. Is Pcarbonn using synthesis from [usually low impact] primary sources to draw a novel interpretation, that cold fusion is an emergent field of great potential, to offset the documented mainstream view and thereby present cold fusion as a valid alternative of equal stature with the mainstream view, as forbidden by
   WP:SYN
   .
3. Has Pcarbonn succeeded in skewing Wikipedia content towards a fringe view and away from the mainstream?
4. If so, how do we change the way we work in order to prevent this happening again?

WP:AGF

encourages to allow for the fact that Pcarbonn's actions may genuinely be the result of the relatively common misconception that WP is like academic publishing, where you are positively encouraged to draw novel syntheses. If Pierre Carbonnel wrote an overview of the subject in the terms that Pcarbonn writes on Wikipedia, this would absolutely not violate the policies and norms of academic writing, whether or not it passed peer review, but it does, in my view violate Wikipedia's policies, because on Wikipedia we are not subject matter experts and are not, therefore, permitted to give ourselves the role of a peer review panel, only of editors.

@ Pohta ce-am pohtit: You are quite wrong. Wikipedia is supposed, by policy, to prefer secondary sources to primary sources, and definitely to prefer accurate representations of primary sources in secondary sources, over novel synthesis form selective use of detail from the primary source, which is what we had here. That is policy. In this case it was not "some journalist" but an editorial in Physics Today, and there were other journal articles as well, plus other reviews by, yes, "some journalists", such as from the BBC, which has quite a reputation for accurate journalism and emplys several specialist science journalists (see BBC News science section).

@ Kevin Baas: SA is NPOV pushing. Pcarbonn is POV-pushing. There is an important difference, which does not endorse SA's lapses, althogh they are understandable given the sheer number of POV-pushers he is up against.

Original research, undue weight, management of same

Compare:

In 2004, the DOE convened another panel which came to a similar conclusion. Of eighteen reviewers, twelve decided the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions was not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence, five were somewhat convinced, and one believed that the occurrence was demonstrated.

"While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review"; "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV." and "The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field [..] The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals."

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

— DoE conclusions

Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago.

— Physics Today

As far as Wikipedia and this arbitration goes, this is perfectly emblematic of the problem.

• Version 1 is a
  synthesis from the narrative in relation to one of the three charge elements of the review. It is not a direct quote from the review at all, much less the conclusion, and yet it is in the lead right now [78]
  as the main and most visible representation of the findings of the DoE review.
• Version 2, a CF advocate's view, quotes part of the conclusion but "balances" it with a paragraph form the report body which is generic (funding bodies always support well-designed research targeted at resolving unanswered questions) but is represented as conferring some kind of endorsement on this field of research.
• Version 3, which is the conclusion of the review - and please tell me I do not have to actually explain the significance of the conclusion of a piece of scientific work - is buried in the middle of the current version of the article.
• Version 4 is the reaction to the DoE review printed in Physics Today, and coincidentally a direct quote from the report's conclusions. This mainstream reaction to the review is not represented in the lead. It is not quoted in the article at all, in fact, but it is cited as a source for the text that most scientists greet the claims of excess heat with scepticism It's a bit more than that, it is the whole claim of cold fusion where they are sceptical, but the para in the current version also obscures that by balancing the mainstream view with a count of the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, without the necessary context of those journals' impact factors and expertise in the area. But I digress.

The reports of excess heat and anomalous tritium production[α] have been met by most scientists with skepticism,[59] although discussion in professional settings still continues. The American Chemical Society's (ACS) 2007 conference in Chicago held an "invited symposium" on cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions, and thirteen papers were presented at the "Cold Fusion" session of the March 2006 American Physical Society (APS) Meeting in Baltimore.[60][61] Articles supporting cold fusion have been published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, and Journal of Fusion Energy.[62][63]

We are told that "most scientists" is weasel words, but what about "in professional settings?" What we have here is a paragraph from the same current version of the article, which clearly asserts parity of esteem between those active in the fringe field, and the mainstream view. And that is a massive failing. And the article is like that despite lengthy mediation, the involvement of large numbers of editors, a high profile blowup following Pcarbonn's description of his "victory" in the fringe advocates' house journal and so on.

The preference for citing primary sources rather than overview sources which demonstrate the mainstream view is evident consistently. Example: [79] which removes commentary from the BBC, Physics World and Physics Today. This is completely counter to Wikipedia policy, which actively prefers secondary or overview sources over primary sources precisely because of the need to control this kind of advocacy.

So, something is clearly very badly broken in the way the community is managing this content dispute, which is similar to many others. I may be wrong in this by my reading of

, we should, in discussing the DoE review, cite a mainstream secondary source rather than a primary source. And whichever source we use, we should ensure that what we say accurately reflects the overall tone of the source, which would imply using the conclusion (from a primary source) or the lead (from a journalistic source). Instead we have done the very worst possible thing, which is to synthesis something from a paragraph in the body of the report which implies significant support for a verifiably fringe field.

This is why I am not active on this article. I simply do not trust myself to retain my temper. Anybody who can in all conscience support the use of a synthesised argument obscuring the overall tone ("nothing has changed") in favour of boosting the credibility of the fringe field of "low energy nuclear research" and in the lead of a supposedly good article, should, in my view, be banned from editing any article on subjects of this kind. ArbCom does not rule on content. This is not about content. It's about the wilful and pretty close to fraudulent abuse of sources in violation of core policy.

Pcarbonn is a "mission poster"

Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted both here in an external forum [80] that his goal on Wikipedia is to change the thrust of the article on cold fusion to better reflect what is without question a minority view. This minority is reasonably well organised and has its "house journal", New Energy Times, in which advocacy is evident specifically in respect of the Wikipedia article: [81] Pcarbonn explicitly sees this as a "battle": [82] and sees that he has "won" the battle, which is an accurate perception, the two main problems being that (a) he should not have brought the battle here in the first place and (b) the battle is to violate core policy so should not have been won.

A review of his contributions will show little if any involvement outside of the area of cold fusion, i.e. Pcarbonn is a

) which covers the DoE panel in terms which are flattering to the cherry-picked supportive statements form the DoE panel.

Examples:

• [83]
• [84], adding large chunks of apologia for CF advocacy, cited in large part from New Energy Times, a journal which has no known acceptance in the mainstream.
• [85] removing the cited text "While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review"

Whether he has a COI or not is irrelevant. He is a single-purpose editor whose purpose here is to advocate for a fringe field. The DoE report begins: "The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science (SC) was approached in late 2003 by a group of scientists who requested that the Department revisit the question of scientific evidence for low energy nuclear reactions." The DoE review failed to endorse the idea of cold fusion, according to independent secondary sources, and Pcarbonn seems to me to be essentially using Wikipedia to refight the same battle. He has come here to represent the (very small) group of scientists who support cold fusion, and ask that it be re-evaluated. That is not Wikipedia's job.

WP:TRUTH

Pcarbonn's evidence above is yet another example of asserting

) instead of the mainstream view as seen in mainstream sources and as documented by the Department of Energy review, with attendant discussion of that review also in mainstream sources. Indeed, selective interpretation of the DoE review and advocacy for the use of cherry-picked sentences rather than its high-level overview, was a bone of contention in the mediation case. In mainstream science, cold fusion falls somewhere between ignored and derided. The article as Pcarbonn rewrote it, largely on his own since his constant argumentation and tens of thousands of words of repetitive argument form primary sources drove away anyone who did not have, as he evidently does, months to spend on this one subject, more or less hides this fact.

This is an arbitration case, arbitration cases do not address content. Instead they address how content is edited, and whether that is in line with our core policies,

, as an assertion that this somehow amounts to acceptance where no such acceptance can be attributed to a valid authority. It does not matter how many times Uri Geller bends the spoon, and how many others claim also to be able to bend spoons, spoon bending will not become accepted by the scientific community until there a credible and reproducible mechanism is documented. So with CF. It matters not how many duplicate the experiment and produce anomalous heat, without a credible mechanism (the basic science) it will not be accepted. It would not be accepted anyway, but the highly public Fleischmann & Pons business means that it is especially so with this particular field.

Inadequate controls on missionaries

The core question for arbitration is: does Pcarbonn's involvement serve to promote a neutral point of view, or to move us away from it. Has Pcarbonn's involvement made it easier or harder for Wikipedia editors to document a fringe field in ways that make it clear that it is a fringe field, and why it is so, and will his continued involvement be conducive to maintaining that position or will his continued involvement serve to move Wikipedia content further away from reflecting the mainstream view. I would say that his influence and actions are and always have been counter-policy. It would, however, be entirely legitimate in another venue such as the letters pages of scientific journals. There is nothing evil about challenging mainstream scientists to think again about a rejected field, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it.

Even after it was shown (to my satisfaction) that Pcarbonn is here principally to violate our guidelines in favour of a minority view for which he has sympathy, it was not possible to agree any form of control over that behaviour because he was polite in doing so. Wikipedia currently has no effective method to control people who are single-issue obsessives, since those who resist them and support the mainstream tend to have hundreds of separate single-issue obsessives to deal with, one or two per article, leading to burnout. And let's be clear here, Pcarbonn is far from the worst offender in this line, other articles have much worse missionaries.

That we have tried and failed to control the issue of long-term civil POV-pushing is obvious, since the problem still exists (hence this arbitration) despite the existence of past arbitrations and guidelines such as

]

Evidence presented by

User:Pohta ce-am pohtit

On sources for science articles

I've seen this mistake repeatedly in Wikipedia: some journalist's interpretation of a science review is considered by some Wikipedians (JzG and Pcarbonn in this case) to be more reliable than the review itself. The 2004 DOE report is primary source from a journalistic point of view, but certainly not from a scientific point of view. From the latter POV, the opinion of the science journalist Toni Fender, writing for the Physics Today magazine, carries virtually no scientific weight relative to the DOE review itself, but it can be useful in summarizing the main findings thereof. In case of ambiguities (and this article has some), the review itself should be the authoritative word.

Mainstream sources present CF as surrounded by some controversy

Anyway, assuming that this Physics Today 2005 article is the mainstream view, here is my pragraph-by-paragraph outline of it (full text is free):

• The 2004 DOE report echoes the findings of the 1989.
• CF has fallen into disrepute after the Pons and Fleischmann's claims, but a few continue research under professional adversity.
• Bureaucratic details about the 2004 DOE report: format, participants etc.
• Reviewers were split on evidence for excess power, but even those reviews supporting the finding of excess power pointed out several issues with the experiments.
• CF researchers (from SRI and MIT) saw the mere existence of the 2004 report as vindication that their efforts were scientific.
• DOE does not recommend earmarked funding for CF, but recommends considering individual proposals in specified areas that "could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field", and adds a quote of DOE deputy director that this is nothing unusual.

Science also had an news article about the 2004 DOE review [86] (full text requires subscription), with the title "Outlook for Cold Fusion Is Still Chilly", and the opening paragraph/abstract was A Department of Energy review of "cold fusion" has generated some heat but very little light on the controversial subject. The article points out that "when DOE decided in March to conduct a review of cold-fusion research, the move raised eyebrows among mainstream scientists who have long since abandoned the quest." And that "the outcome appears to reinforce the views of both sides, although it’s hard to tell because the reviewers didn’t meet to hammer out a consensus." It then goes on to detail that some reviewers were extremely skeptical, and that one called CF researchers "true believers", but it states that "about one third of the reviews, however, were receptive to the claims of cold fusion". And it concludes observing that while DOE has not changed its official position on CF, MIT CF researcher Hagelstein was also pleased that "a study should be funded if a proposal is strong. You can’t ask for much more than that." (Hagelstein words)

In 2007 Nature, reported in the news section that the American Chemical Society has allowed CF as a topic at their annual meeting, but the article overall is less positive than the abstract suggests. CF research is not as fringe today as it has been presented by some above, mostly using older sources.

One additional point is necessary however. Besides the CF researchers often mentioned in mainstream science publications, a number of individuals that have entered the field have dubious qualifications, and advance non-scientific theories even according to other CF researchers. This Washington Post article provides supporting evidence.

Positions and behavior of Wikipedia editors on CF

ScienceApologist

SA has argued for presenting cold fusion as pseudoscience, [87] although the consensus on Wikipedia eventually rejected his position. SA has also put CF in the same bag as astrology in his opening statement to this case. [88] If you'd have to pinpoint his position in the spectrum of opinions on CF presented by mainstream sources above, it is apparent that SA's opinion of CF is fairly extreme, perhaps similar to that single DOE reviewer that called CF researchers true believers.

JzG

JzG reverted the CF article to the FA version dating back to 2004, which stated that CF is pseudoscience, and he edit warred a bit over his action [89], [90] (not with Pcarbonn). The FA version predates the Dec. 2004 DOE report on CF, it lacks any inline citations, and has only a handful of references. It's extremely unlikely that the 2004 version of the CF article would pass even GA, let alone FA review today. These arguments were presented, and JzG's action has been rebuked by others in the AN thread that followed JzG's bold time warp [91].

Pcarbonn

New Energy times is a magazine that has a strong pro-CF bias, with streaks of advocacy. This can be easily verified by their FAQ on CF, which contains "questions" like What are the benefits of LENR besides providing a cleaner, sustainable supply of energy? Pcarbonn occasionally writes articles for this magazine, some of them documenting his editing of Wikipedia CF article [92], however that magazine had previously published [93] another article on Wikipedia's presentation of CF.

Although Pcarbonn's central position, on and off site, is that controversy surrounds CF, some of his off-site statements, like the comparison of Copernicus and Galileo with Fleischmann and Pons [94], make his position suspiciously close to that of a true believer.

Pcabonn occasionally argues for the enemy (as he claims), but he does this by opposing sources of different reliability and prominence [95]. A DOE review, which includes scientists of varying opinion on CF, does not need counterbalance from a single pro-CF researcher, even if the latter is also a review.

A more egregious example of the same behavior are source categorizations like this. Mixing, and especially ordering sources of varying academic reputation, based on the letter, rather than the spirit of Wikipedia rules for reliable sources, with the pro-CF ones coming on top is clear evidence of POV pushing. Acording to Pcarbonn, the top source is a pro-CF review published in IJNEST, a journal with no ISI rating (Web of Knowledge access needed to verify). By his ranking, Pcarbonn would want us to think that this dubious review, because it's published in a journal, no matter how obscure, trumps the DOE review, or the report thereof in Physics Today. This argument would get laughed out the door in any serious scientific discussion. (If there is still doubt about this, I'll be happy to detail the argument for every source in that list, but the presentation would be fairly long.)

Pcarbonn also cherry picks mainstream sources out of context. [96] In this case, the article was about CF being accepted back at ACS after 18 years, but Pcarbonn made no mention of that fact, and just cherry picked a quote of

is tendentious.

Edit warring by ScienceApologist and Pcarbonn

Although not breaking 3RR in 24hrs., both SA and Pcarbonn (with the occasional participation of other editors) have edit warred in November 2008 over the choice of language used in the lead [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. In this example, both SA and Pcarbonn argued for the most favorable wording towards their position, and both attempted to white wash or omit numbers they did not like. Words in dispute were proponents vs. advocates; 2/3 is a majority, while (the other) 1/3 is a "cooked statistic" etc. Some of this falls in

territory, demonstrating that both editors are engaging in a bitter POV struggle.

Olorinish

Practically the entire section of evidence Olorinish provided above proves one thing: he is even less knowledgeable than Pcabonn about CF, but he is very opinionated against CF. Details.

I am quite surprised to see this arbitration request, nonetheless it getting accepted. I've been on the cold fusion page for quite some time (mostly just on the talk page) and I've seen far more POV pushing from ScienceApologist than I have Pcarbonn. Perhaps it's not as visible because ScienceApologist might be percieved as "defending the mainstream" and I'd imagine he'd contend that to be his "mission". But I really get the impression that his ideal form of the article would leave out a lot of significant, verifiable and pertinent information. Which would be easier to do if people that opposed this were gone.

So I see this request as just a strong-armed extension of ScienceApologist's POV-pushing. He probably doesn't see it that way. And in all honesty, he probably doesn't think of it that way. But there really are no grounds for action here, and I think this request is a waste of the arbitrators' time, and an abuse of process.

Logic and prejudice

I am not involved with the Cold Fusion article, having made a total of 5 posts on an RfF. However, I'd like to use my brief exchange with ScienceApologist as an example of a more pervasive problem with fringe-type articles, which has a bearing on this case. The exchange began with:

1. my first post: I suggest that SA's suggested version was factually incorrect in one place and mildly weasel-worded in another.
2. SA's response: this is merely contradiction - he claims that there is no factual error and no weasel wording, without discussion.
3. my response: I try to argue the point again, using an explanatory example.
4. SA's response: this response (an attempt to counter my argument above). it contains two errors of logic, which I address in my next post.
5. my response: here I point out the two logic errors in SA's post: ad hominem reasoning, where he tries to discredit my argument by suggesting I'm not qualified to make it, and arguing from consequents to antecedents, because he suggests that CF research is unreliable because it's fringe
   • example - ad hominems: What is with this rhetoric, Ludwigs? Have you made a detailed investigation of the sources? Do you have a degree in physics or chemistry? What is causing you to be so didactic about this subject?
   • example - arguing from consequents to antecedents: because unlike relativity, cold fusion is
     fringe
     and marginalized: not accepted by the mainstream and we need to treat it differently accordingly. I am confident that weasel wording only makes sense when the wording falsely gives the impression of marginality or falsely gives the impression of greater acceptance.
6. [SA's response: rather than addressing (and possibly resolving) the apparent errors of logic, SA chooses to resort to ad hominems once more.

After that, I withdrew from the conversation.

The greater problem here is that SA and several other editors have a distinct prejudice against fringe topics that disrupts the ability to discuss those topics with careful consideration. The hallmark of a fringe theory is that it is a supposedly scientific theory that does not produce reliably measurable results; the extension of this to the assertion that these theories do not produce reliably measurable results because they are fringe theories is pure fallacy. It's equivalent to this: yes, it's an observable fact that a large proportion of students who do well in college are of Asian descent (as a professor I can vouch for this, or you can look up the stats); but no, it's an error (as well as a form of prejudice) to turn that around and say that Asians are better students (or worse, that Asians are smarter). The second statement makes assertions about 'innate characteristics' of Asians that is not implied by the first.

Clearly, wikipedia would not allow prejudicial statements to be included in any article about race - we would not let a statement like 'Asians are smarter' into an article about any Asian race, regardless of how many reliably sourced academic statistics were offered in defense of it. It would be considered

at best, and excluded on those grounds. Yet certain editors on Fringe topics consistently argue that fringe researchers are not 'researchers' but 'advocates', and that reliably source fringe publications (even those in credible scientific journals) should be excluded as advocate positions. Why should we prohibit the first but not the second?

I'm all for science - I have a cute cartoon I might post here later to that effect. But mainstream science is not 'correct' science and it's not 'superior' science. It's effective, and it's functional, and that's all. The efforts to cast fringe theories and the people who pursue them as somehow dysfunctional (rather than merely non-functional) ruins articles and spoils their talk pages with endless rubbish. If you want to put a stop to the problem, that's where to start - reign in that anti-fringe theory prejudice (and the logical fallacy on which it's based) and the problem will go away.

Response to Jehochman

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Jehochman’s derrogatory comment about me presented as some sore of ‘evidence’ of Pcarbonn’s bias (POV) problem. J states that I have been involved in COI editing. This is insulting and demeaning. I was asked by email from Steven Krivit, editor of New Energy times, to participate in editing the Wiki page on cold fusion to supply balance to the article, as it was thought at the time to be to strongly ‘pro’ CF. I decided I would help, primarily by adding to the already existing section entitled ‘Criticisms’. The reason Krivit asked me is because I am the only technical skeptic he knows in the field. I am a technical skeptic since I have published a conventional explanation of apparent excess heat, one of the primary effects used to support CF claims, and two rebuttals to comments suggesting my explanation was valueless. If my explanation is correct, and no one has challenged the base of it, there are no claims of apparent excess heat, past or present, that can simply be accepted as they are presented. The only other technical skeptic I know of in the post-2000 timeframe was W. Brian Clarke, who passed away in 2002.

My objective in editing the Wiki CF page was to get the technical criticisms currently in force into the article. Prior to my involvement, the only ‘criticisms’ included in the article were old ones that had been addressed, giving the reader the impression that CF researchers had answered all criticisms and thus CF should be considered a valid field of research.

In my editing, I have attempted to maintain the scientific practice of presenting one’s own work in the third person neutrally. The edits cited by J are examples of this, where I was simply correcting the article to reflect the actual events. This is not ‘COI’. I contend that if you substitute any name you like for mine in the text, you will see that the presentation is neutral but factual. The idea that one cannot write about one’s work without POV-pushing or having a COI is ridiculous. Half of the scientific literature wouldn’t exist if that were a valid thought process. If J thinks I have pushed myself, he should take those sections he finds offensive, replace my name with ‘X’, and post it as an example of how ‘X’ is being misrepresented or overly attributed or whatever.

J also lists my last edit dates. I’m not sure what he is trying to prove with that, but I had ceased editing for awhile because I didn’t have anything else to add to the ongoing discussion. I am waiting until the more recent group of editors gets past the Intro and on to sections I am interested in before I begin doing more. (It is painful to see how much effort has had to be expended in just the Intro section!)

Regarding Pcarbonn

With regards to Pcarbonn’s editing, I have had serious difficulties with him. He has block deleted most of my additions to the article (the only one he hasn’t done away with at this point was my addition of a description of Clarke’s work) (see the changes I added on Sept. 17, then look at what Pcarbonn did to them). He continues this to this day with his most recent edit of 17 Nov. including deletion of a small section I added to the article that provided citation as to the fringe status of CF. He has also shunted most of my criticisms based on my own work into a sub-article, a tactic he used the last time I was involved in this page (c. 2005-6), where he created a ‘Cold Fusion Controversy’ page to discuss the crticisms, and which now no longer exists. I am sure he hoped to do that again in the future with the ‘calorimetery in cold fusion’ page.

He prefers to use strict interpretation of Wiki policies to justify his deletions, primarily requiring me to cite refernces for everything. However, as noted in the CF Talk page discussions, and on this page as well, CF has been a pariah field since c. 1994. That means there are almost NO negative technical articles in the literature since that time. Available are my work, Clarke’s work, and the Jones and Hansen and Shkedi contributions, as opposed to copiuos pro-CF articles, most published in obscure places but a few in mainline journals.

There are however the basic criticisms of all pathological or pseudoscience, that of working near the limits of the techniques used and of simply misinterpreting data. I tried to explain these points, which did not have any citations attached because they are basic chemistry concerns, and was block deleted. When I focused on one topic and tried to provide examples of how contamination had been found by a worker (Scott Little) who doesn’t publish much by citing a Web paper he had posted, strictly as an example as per Wiki policy on such materials, Pcarbonn challenged the ‘expert’ status of Little by claiming he had published no papers in the field. When I cited one, he P said it didn’t count because it was in a Proceedings (Proceedings are not preferred Wiki sources, but DO count to demostrate a worker is active and contributing in a given field).

We have had extensive discussions of two of the four major criticisms I added, and I am dissatisfied with the article at this point because the crticisms are not fairly included, but Pcarbonn will not allow any edit I make to stand. I was about to give up until the most recent group of editors arrived and began noting Pcarbonn’s extreme bias towards the supposed reality of cold fusion.

I don’t personally feel Pcarbonn has to be totally banned from editing this page. He has a POV, and that POV is the ‘pro’ side. As long as the ‘con’ side is allowed in, and the historical facts are fairly represented (especially about how post-1994, mainline science moved on and stopped thinking about CF), then I think things would be fine. I have previously suggested that Pcarbonn be restricted to editing the ‘pro’ and historical sections of the article. Other editors will keep me in line with Wiki policies if I stray a bit, but I don’t believe they will block delete anti-CF commentary when is is technically justified. If he is allowed to continue as he has done to date, I simply give up. I don’t have the time to fight a word-by-word battle to add something to a Wiki article.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.