JzG is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=398836869&oldid=398756375 On the Case] re Cold fusion
The neutrality warning can come off when we've rolled back the assiduous POV-pushing of Abd, and before him Pcarbonn, both of whom have been used as patsies by the cold fusion community. JzG (T-C-L-K-R-D)
"Guy" 17:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see, by ArbComm (instigated by JzG) Pcarbonn was topic banned in December, 2008. I was topic banned (instigated by the cabal, especially WMC) in June, 2009. Pcarbonn came off his topic ban in December 2009, but behaved as COI, and was still banned by the community anyway, instigation of JzG, made no significant edits to the article.
I came off my topic ban in September, 2010, but also behaved as COI, no controversial edits remained in the article, anything I'd changed of any note was reverted (even where I expected it to be non-controversial, like linking to the Wikiversity resource, which should be normal, as a place where people may work on educational materials or participate in interactive education). I was banned under "discretionary sanctions" by an idiot admin who thought my request on meta to delist lenr-canr.org was adequate as grounds for a ban. Even though the request was granted. And since I haven't appealed that, the pseudoskeptics (see Pseudoskeptic
) remain firmly in charge. Nobody left has the wikiskills to ask for discretionary sanctions against obvious, blatant, POV-pushing going on by the cabal editors.
The pseudoskeptics have had almost free reign with the article since December, 2008, with only a brief period in early 2009 where I added some material -- only a little, the least controversial of what might have been added. What is left of that is practically unrecognizable, anything with any meat has been cut out.
But JzG wants to blame me and Pcarbonn for the mess? In fact, the current attempt to bring some sanity to the article, by Uva Ursa, is based on the total dominance of recent peer-reviewed mainstream secondary sources by reviews that accept the basic cold fusion phenomena as established scientific fact. The extreme skeptical position, pushed by JzG and ScienceApologist, is utterly missing from the literature, except for one recent letter by Kirk shanahan (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, clearly treated as a fringe opinion by the editors of the journal. Except for the immediate response by researchers copublished with that letter, Shanahan has been almost completely ignored. By everyone.
The pseudoskeptics explain away the total imbalance by claiming that nobody in their right mind would bother even discussing cold fusion, but ... that's not what the sources say, that is not the position the U.S. Department of Energy showed in 2004, in a source which the article accepts only in a misleading summary that implies
total dismissal when the actual source review shows practically the opposite.
The position of ScienceApologist, which Wikipedia is fostering and encouraging, by allowing the ban of every expert in the field who has made an attempt to help, is that any author who has anything to do with cold fusion research is ipso facto "biased" and whatever they write is to be excluded. This is a blatant denial of Wikipedia RS guidelines, which depend on publishers
, especially mainstream publishers, to filter out fringe.
Bottom line, since 2005, there have been about sixteen secondary source reviews of cold fusion in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. None of them are negative. The latest is authoritative, prominently featured in the "flagship multidisciplinary journal", Naturwissenschaften
," founded in 1913, published by Springer-Verlag
(founded in 1842, the largest book publisher and second-largest journal publisher in the world):Status of cold fusion (2010)
. It looks like someone paid Springer the $3000 it takes to get them to openly release an article, even though the preprint was already available at lenr-canr.org.
The arguments against that as a reliable source were rejected at RSN, but that means nothing if nobody is left to use it and if the editors sitting on the article will reject anything with any BS they can think up.
And I got tired of appealing to ArbComm and getting the usual advice to stuff a sock in it, content dispute, don't write so much and just Go Away, and finding no support from the community. (To be sure, some of my support was also banned by cabal action, this was before the Climate Change arbitration made some tiny steps toward sanity. And arbitrators who might have been inclined to hear me out recused from handling my issues.... that's a bit of a structural defect! If you filter out anyone who will consider one side of a case, what's left? I didn't see the arbitrators who were inclined to throw the book at me recusing....)
But JzG is beginning to piss me off. Maybe I'll file something, if anyone gives me a whisper of support. Otherwise, forget about it. I don't care enough. This idea that people in a field regarded as fringe are desperate, DESPERATE, I tell you, to get Wikipedia to promote their field, is a total fantasy. It's one more of the arguments by the pseudoskeptics. I know the experts in cold fusion, now, many of them personally. They don't care at all about Wikipedia, they think it's preposterous, and of no consequence. Surprisingly, they have focused on research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Like, duh!This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 25th November 2010, 11:25pm