Cold fusion, Why not? Options

[Abd]

I'll just start this with a whimper, not a bang. JzG, the big meanie, just removed Yet Another Link to lenr-canr.org from Cold fusion. Waaa! Teacher told him not to do that! I'm going to take my marbles home! Now that I'm banned, I get to whine all I want! It's kinda fun!

No discussion, he gave the same argument that was discussed to death at Martin Fleischmann (T-H-L-K-D), that was discussed to death at MediaWiki talk:Whitelist, and always, in the end, rejected.

Pure wikilawyering: there is zero legal risk to Wikipedia from linking to that paper, the web site claims permission for all that it hosts, and if there is a defect with a couple of pages, it's basically irrelevant. (Very different situation with newenergytimes.com, they host under a claim of fair use, which they can get away with as a nonprofit until the publisher squawks.) The specific paper he delinked was approved by Beetstra at the whitelist page, after all the objections had been raised about copyright.

Ban the cat, the place is overrun with mice. Kind of cute, aren't they?

Wikipedia, you traded Abd and WMC's bit for JzG and Hipocrite. Enjoy.

[Abd]

Well, I was banned for a year, the Cold fusion article stagnated. When Pcarbonn came off his year ban at the beginning of this year, JzG went to AN and suggested that he was "pushing the same POV that got him banned before," and the claque obliged with a community extension of the topic ban, based on JzG pointing out talk page posts where he appeared to be pushing a fringe POV by pointing to relliable sources. JzG didn't mention that they were talk page posts, didn't mention that Pcarbonn was completely not making article edits, and didn't mention that ArbComm had sanctioned JzG for his activities with Cold fusion. They just saw their friend JzG proposing something, so "Yeah!" "Yeah" "Off with his head!"

JzG, as he'd done many times, claimed that Pcarbonn was banned because of his POV. Maybe, but ArbComm certainly wouldn't have said that, it would be so obviously a policy violation. What ArbComm actually banned him for was for writing an article complimentary of Wikipedia, in New Energy Times, a cold fusion publication, where Pcarbonn described using Wikipedia guidelines and careful and civil process to "correct media imbalance."

It was completely taken out of context as presented by JzG to ArbComm. The field is an unusual one, where, for quite some time, there has been a gap between what is in peer-reviewed reliable source, and what was in popular media (the popular media didn't begin to shift until after Pcarbonn was banned.) In other words, Pcarbonn was arranging for the article to follow policy for science articles!

The usual. Pcarbonn was assassinated by JzG's framing of what he'd done.

I'm off my ban and now and made an edit to the article, incorporating what had been removed by WMC, in his edit under protection that ArbComm actually dinged him for. Then I self-reverted because I'm COI now, and went to Talk and proposed the edit, explaining the history. And, of course, they came out of the woodwork to argue a pile of irrelevancies. The usual, the usual, so what else is new?

Rlevse took time out of his busy day to ding me for "walls of text." I wasn't banned from walls of text, though that may have been the real complaint of some arbs. They really don't like to read anything, it's too much work if it's longer than a sentence or two.

And Tony Sidaway, of course, because I'd commented in some threads on Cold fusion where I didn't start the discussion, invoked the MYOB ban. I'm not sure what the "dispute" was that was a Wikipedia dispute, it was mostly off-topic rambling, but one of these actually mentioned my "company," and so I commented briefly.

I'm reminded of why I came to have such a low opinion of the non-recusing arbs and of people like TS. Pure wikilawyer, Tony is. He'd helped me get dinged earlier this year by editing a poll on AN to remove the bolding so that he and Future Perfect could claim it wasn't a "poll," because I was allowed to comment in polls but not to "intervene in disputes."

They really want me Gone, and they will do about anything to accomplish that. And I WP:DGAF. I do have a lot better stuff to do, and if their article on Cold fusion is about one percent of what could be written from reliable sources -- and that's probably about right --, so what?

They don't want people to revert war, they want people to discuss. Except they don't want people to discuss, if they actually discuss, with depth and sources, it's a "wall of text" and "Go Away! You're "dominating the discussion."

In other words, they are acting to prevent the only method of real dispute resolution that works to find true consensus: discussion in depth. That discussion can be moved to some other page, there are lots of devices that can be used, but they aren't interested, really. It is not necessary that everyone read that discussion. Discussion will find some level of agreement, perhaps, between those discussing, who will then present it to the larger group. It is standard, basic, deliberative process, which Wikipedia actually uses but which it has never generally understood, so it doesn't use it when it is most needed.

On Martin Fleischmann I managed a difficult discussion over the use of a paper from Martin himself. JzG had been revert warring over it. I kept refactoring that discussion to summarize agreements and keep the focus on what remained to be resolved. It worked. The consensus was real, and it was stable. Anyone could come and see the summary of the process on the top level, and could look at whatever detail they wanted. JzG really didn't like that, but he tried to neglect it and was reverted by other admins.

An editor who is very much anti-cold fusion, part of the problem last year, went to NYB and complained about my "walls of text." He'd seen a comment by NYB in the case last year and thought that NYB would be supportive. Didn't complain to me! just to an arb he thought would be supportive. These guys only know opposition and battle, the idea of asking someone, of discussing it, is completely foreign to them, and they see everything through the lens of victory and loss. Seeing the comments arrive on Talk:Cold fusion, Keven Bass was reminded why he'd been so disgusted last year.

Me too.

ArbComm doesn't care if admins or "productive editors" are abusive. It is terrified that if it reprimands or -- horrors! -- suspends tool use until an admin agrees to follow recusal policy or other policies, the admin and his friends will Go Away and leave the project hanging without all that free skilled volunteer labor. That's the real reason, I believe, that admin abuse is tolerated. Fear that the great hordes of uninitiated editors will take over.

It's essentially stupid, because abuse is driving away editors every day. But that's what it is.

I was accused of driving away editors at Cold fusion, though no actual example was presented. Yet I'm aware of real scientists who have been driven away from that article, whether by ban or by sheer frustration. One of them funded my "company."

Most of the scientists I know, and I now know many in the field, wouldn't even think of trying to edit Wikipedia in any fashion. And that's what I've encountered from academics in many fields. Bad Situation, and not getting any better, because ArbComm has been unwilling to confront blatant abuse, happening even on its own Arbitration pages.

Meanwhile, I really do need to do some cell fabrication, the design is nailed down, greatly improved, I believe, over my first concepts. I'm just slow as hell. But I hope to be running the cell for the first time within two months. So far, all I've sold is LR-115 solid state radiation detector material. Cool stuff, way cool. Cheap. Much easier to use than the more common CR-39.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Rlevse took time out of his busy day to ding me for "walls of text." I wasn't banned from walls of text, though that may have been the real complaint of some arbs. They really don't like to read anything, it's too much work if it's longer than a sentence or two.

I like cold fusion and I like you, but if there's a 12-step program for "walls of text," you should join it.

[Abd]

I like cold fusion and I like you, but if there's a 12-step program for "walls of text," you should join it.

Onandon Anonymous.

However, meetings don't last, because the speaker goes on past the closing time. (Seriously, I have very extensive 12-step experience. Someone with experience will maintain eye contact with the group present and will know when to stop.)
Wikipedia Review doesn't have ready devices for layering of text. Wikipedia does, and, further, I already put way too much time as it is into organizing what I was putting on Talk:Cold fusion into other than "walls of text," which has a very specific referent, and doesn't refer to length, per se, but to text that presents an appearance of impossibility of reading. You know it when you see it, and it's obvious. Some of these idiots just read the diffs, which then conceals the organizational techniques that were used to improve accessibility.

What really happens there, and this has become very clear, is that there are people attempting to maintain POV who don't want to learn about the subject. You can't become aware of article balance if you don't know the topic, this is part of the basic anti-expert problem of Wikipedia, that imagines you can come up with a neutral article by assembling snippets with no overview.

Was what I wrote there difficult? Some of it certainly is. I've become an expert in the field, of a kind, and I had the physics background. The most difficult stuff I put in collapse, but I sometimes assume that those working on the article have an understanding of the basic issues and science. For Wikipedia, bad assumption. I also assume, quite possibly incorrectly, that they are actually interested in what the sources say and what the balance of sources imply.

This is a major scientific controversy, the controversy itself has been covered in academic publications, more than one, but only the tiniest fraction of what is available in RS has appeared in Wikipedia, because those who want to keep their commitment to cold fusion being "pathological science" really don't want to see it. It might make them uncomfortable, and that is the real policy there: Do Not Make Us Uncomfortable, Do Not Present Us With Evidence.

At Cold fusion, there are, at this point, two editors who have some extensive knowledge of the literature, that would be myself and Kirk Shanahan. There is also Objectivist (V), who is somewhat familiar. (Uva Ursa has just showed up, with some knowledge, obviously.) Both Kirk and I are COI. Neither Kirk nor Objectivist understand NPOV and RS policy, and they continually wrangle over issues that aren't about reasonably possible article text.

At this point, the machine is starting to engage toward banning me again, I can hear the whirs and clicks. They are hardly subtle. If no sane editors show up to moderate, this reaction will go critical and melt down. Most of the sane editors I know have left. Kevin Bass has tried, but he's so fried by what came down before that I'm not sure he can be effective.

I've suggested an article "moderator," who would watch and refactor Talk to keep it on topic, collapsing, archiving off-topic stuff, or even deleting it, request that disruptive editors cease disruption, and enforce this if ignored, etc. That is the kind of solution that could vastly improve the way Wikipedia handles conflict. But watch and see if anything like that happens. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The majority of arbitrators don't want solutions. It would make their friends uncomfortable. I can't tell you how much of a disappointment Carcharoth has been. Insightful, sometimes, but gutless. NewYorkBrad is aware of some of the issues, but is likewise gutless. He wrote on his Talk page that he thought I wouldn't listen to his advice. He derived that from his having voted "against me." That's part of the divisive thinking that infected Wikipedia. Has he tried? I remember NYB once warning me about some editing I was doing. I stopped in my tracks and never repeated that, even though I was likely "right." (This was about reverting the edits of a banned editor, who had been trolling by removing verifiable text from porn star articles that were apparently, to a naive eye, vandalism or libel. Complicated issue, one that Wikipedia wasn't, and isn't, ready to actually address and solve.)

They thought a mentor would be useless because they imagined I wouldn't listen to a mentor. The fact is that I listen to everyone, but I'd be obligated to listen to a mentor, or I'd be blocked. That's an efficient solution. Except that Abd is tricky. People who communicate with him extensively tend to end up agreeing with him, if they don't have an axe to grind that distracts them too much. They sensed, probably correctly, that a mentor would not stop me from doing What They Don't Like. Because the mentor would agree and permit it.

("Listen to everyone") If you look back at the history of my Talk page, since I came off block last year, you'll see that as soon as someone warned me, I agreed to stop the specific behavior causing the warning, even though I disagreed with the basis. That's what I did yesterday, too. I'm seriously attempting to avoid 'walls of text,' however, there is a limit to how much time I can put in, and when I'm asked a question, I consider myself obligated to answer it.

It's now been suggested that when a followup question is asked, my response should always be shorter than my initial response. This is so unbelievably stupid .... What this principle, if I adopted it, would lead to is a need to make the initial response as complete as possible! Perhaps unfortunately, I already do this to a degree...

But I assume that, as in conversation, if someone doesn't understand part of it, they will ask. So then, when they ask, the question may reveal multiple areas of ignorance on the topic, or misunderstandings, and if I haven't been complete in the original response, assuming that a person had background, I will then try to fill it in. Which can, indeed, take a lot of words, more than the original response, if it was relatively brief.

Facilitation of discussion on Wikipedia is badly needed. The software encourages hypertext, a classic solution, by now, to "walls of text" and "domination of discussion." It's easy, and, where I've had defacto permission to do it, I've demonstrated how to take complex issues and reduce them to layered discussions that expose the issues and show how they are resolved, in a manner easily followed.

But on Talk:Cold fusion, when I even edited to restore my own connected text, as I put it up, the relatively clueless but very pushy COI editor who'd chopped my response in two revert warred to keep my halves separate. And nobody intervened, which would have instantly resolved that tempest in a teapot. Most of the discussion on Talk:Cold fusion should be collapsed or archived. Try reading that page! My discussions there have, where left visible on the top layer, been focused toward proposing specific text changes and documenting the history of these issues, making it accessible to someone who cares about the article.

The biggest objection comes from Woonpton, who "wants to be able to follow the discussion on Talk," and apparently I made that difficult for her. Like it was easy before? But she hasn't actually contributed to content, and she doesn't at all discuss content, just me. EdChem popped in, with nothing about content, only about me, and went to Talk:NewYorkBrad to try to stir up trouble, thinking that NYB was likely to agree with him. He didn't discuss this with me on my Talk page.

I've been using collapse on Talk:Cold fusion to layer down about a third of what I've written. If I had the freedom to do it, I'd collapse a lot more, of what others have written that was off-topic. Some of my comments are exposed, outside of collapse, because they are specific response to others, whereas it should all be collapsed. At this point, it may be that most of the comments by number are attacking me, instead of discussing the article. But who is getting warned?

Edchem used total edit byte counts to exaggerate the "wall of textness" of my work. Which completely ignores several important factors: layering, i.e., the level of text in collapse was about one-third, and presentational devices such as sectioning with bold text, separated paragraphing, and smalltext for formatting or brief dicta. To actually determine if my level of contribution was excessive, someone would have to review the actual content, determine if it was off-topic or not.

I've suggested that ArbComm for matters like this appoint an "investigator," a neutral editor who would investigate and report. They could do this for lots of topic areas. Prolific editors, with most of their work being quite good and valuable, have been banned because of "walls of text" in Talk, when a Talk moderator could easily and quickly handle the problem without censorship, facilitating the discovery of consensus. By banning those who are highly interested in a topic, they are removing the most valuable contributors, and generally dumbing down the project. I've claimed that these highly involved editors could be considered COI, with their task being to advise the active editors, but that requires that they be allowed to freely discuss! People can ignore the discussion if they want, and it only takes one editor sufficient interested to read it to "carry the message" back to the rest.

Walls of text don't violate policy, but incivility does. Likewise presenting grossly misleading arguments on Talk, if that rises to a level where deceptive effect is a serious problem, is an offense that has resulted in bans (Wikipedia tends to all-or-nothing sanctions, very Bad Idea). I'm trying to protect Kirk, because he's necessary to have the true skeptical POV represented, but he really would like to see me disappear, even though I'm the only one who has attempted to preserve and make visible his published work and his Wikipedia work, and I'm probably the only editor there with significant understanding of his Calibration Constant Shift theory. (See User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, deleted by claims that it was a "POV fork." Thus dumbing down Wikipedia coverage. There really should be dozens of articles or more. This is a huge field.)