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 page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

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 was a field of science begun in 1989. After about ten years of failure in attempts to verify the initial experimental results, Cold fusion faded into the realm of fringe theory, as reported in 1999 by this source, Physics Today. This is the top ranking reliable source in Google for a search on "cold fusion". Google relies on PageRank, and algorithm modeled on an idea borrowed from academia: the source cited (or page linked to) most often is probably the most authoritative.

Others have presented evidence that Pcarbonn has engaged in Wikipedia:Advocacy (a guideline I have proposed). He advocates the view that cold fusion is disputed field of science, rather than a 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." I don't think so.
• Spinning Cold fusion: [3][4][5]
• Spillover to other articles: [6][7][8]

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 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 WP:AN on Pcarbonn's topic ban started, the discussion was at first calm and rationale.[28] 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 (talk · contribs) is another 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

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.

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.

Mind you, Pcarbonn is way less 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 scission 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.

About using Physics Today as source for "scientific consensus":

a) given its purpose and the people it reaches, it can be a guidance on how stuff is seen by physics scientists

b) it's certainly way better than piling papers reporting the results of experiments

c) it's an actual secondary source, as opposed to papers reporting exp experiments, which should be considered primary sources for most purposes and should only be used on the absence of secondary sources of any kind (as an example, a very recent clinical trial, which doesn't contradict existing secondary sources, and secondary sources haven't had yet time to cover it[49])

Claiming that we need to quote the DOE review fully, when he's actually cherry-picking again, [50] (link to review, for comparison, see page 5 [51]) just as it has been pointed out to him repeatedly.

And, the next day, reverting to "the GA version of the lead" without addressing why it was changed, ignoring all issues brought on the talk page and on this evidence page [52].

I no longer have any doubt that Pcarbonn is POV pushing and disrupting the editing work of other editors by repeatedly editing back to his interpretation of the sources over all arguments brought forward, even if he doesn't intentionally mean to be disruptive. The point is that disruption still causes problems even if he doesn't intend to, and he has failed to learn non-disruptive ways.

Also, he can't stop himself from making a major edit to the article after promising to take a leave, and he still thinks that he has no problem and that other editors are failing to adhere to wikipedia policies, and that the problems can come from him challenging the status quo[53].

In short, it appears that nothing short of a topic ban will deter him from reverting the article to "the correct version".

WP:NPOV says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." WP:NPOV clearly states that the NPOV policy "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" and that "in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors".

The core of the issue is whether, according to NPOV, Wikipedia should represent cold fusion as it is presented in the reputable academic and scholarly sources, or as it is viewed by "most scientists". The former sees it as an ongoing scientific controversy, while the latter view cold fusion with skepticism.(more)

For the purpose of improving the quality of Wikipedia, I have edited towards the scholarly view, and thus presented both sides of the controversy, while also stating in the article that most scientists view Cold Fusion with skepticism. I have contributed significant content on both sides of the controversy (examples on the skeptical side: 12 345 6 789 or when I created this subpage). I have always engaged in discussion and accepted to participate in all dispute resolution mechanisms. I have never been blocked for incivility or 3RR.

A neutral reading of the 2004 DOE report shows that the controversy is not settled (More). Scholarly journals on the controversy say that it is not resolved.(More) Physics Today is not the most authoritative source on the topic(More). Published reliable sources on the subject indicate an ongoing scientific controversy (More). Favorable articles have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals that are not dedicated to cold fusion(More), a further indication of a ongoing scientific controversy.

No reliable source presents cold fusion as pseudoscience, and a majority of editors decided against placing the cold fusion article in the pseudoscience category (source). The ArbComm once ruled that "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." (source). Who ever said that Wikipedia need to represent the view of "most scientists" ?(More)

It so happens that I also have an opinion on cold fusion. Still, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. WP:NOTSOAPBOX is about propaganda content, not about people : I have added only content from reliable sources, quoting them verbatim : I have thus not added propaganda content.

Pcarbonn (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since these items are cited in the proposed decisions, here is my reply.

• Uses Pioneer anomalie to confuse the discussion; argues for inclusion of non-reliable sources. The Pioneer anomaly entry is a good faith edit to help resolve the dispute on the talk page. The Google Scholar search was not properly done, hence returned dubious numbers. This was corrected later here.
• "Pons is a respected scientist" Actually, my comment was about Martin Fleischmann. He is the discoverer of Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering and a Fellow of the Royal Society, which is considered a great honour.
• Stonewalling or wikilawyering This is a duplicate of the first item above
• "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." If one looks at published, reliable sources, the favorable opinion is very significant (I agree that the word "minority" was not adequate there). Oxford University Press or World Scientific are publishers of high standing in wikipedia, and have issue favorable books on the issue.
• Asserts that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy. I have presented plenty of evidence of that in my evidence above.
• Mischaracterizes what a source says. What I said is absolutely correct.
• "CF papers have been published in the top third of all journals." What I said is absolutely correct. Evidence has been presented here.
• Spinning Cold fusion:
  • [54] Valid edit: I removed words to avoid and weasel words, quoting the 2004 DOE report verbatim.
  • [55] Valid edit: well sourced statement from 2004 DOE
  • [56] After this discussion, I agreed I should not have done this edit.

I used to design PEM fuel cells and am a named inventor on many patents in the technology, (my involvement outlined here). I also wrote much of our Thermodynamic temperature article and have some facility with thermal kinetics. I can speak from an engineering point of view to the current state of affairs regarding cold fusion. I believe the Physics World Mar 1, 1999 article, Whatever happened to cold fusion? should be considered as the paradigm example of a reliable source with regard to cold fusion and should serve as the template for Wikipedia to use in setting the tone and summarizing the current state of affairs on the subject. It is troubling to me that scientists often can’t reproduce certain cold fusion experiments and, even when they do, the reactions disappear in a few days. This state of affairs bears many of the hallmarks of the polywater fiasco, where trace contamination by human sweat was ultimately found to be the culprit. Unless and until there is a breakthrough development in cold fusion that drastically and convincingly changes the status quo, anyone with a consistent pattern of editing on our Cold fusion 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. Greg L (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

In further response, Pcarbonn disputed the papers in question, claiming that they either cover the issue superficially, or say the scientific controversy is unresolved. I respectfully disagree: cold fusion is central to all three papers, and all three papers clearly say that cold fusion (rightly or wrongly) is considered fringe and is out of the mainstream. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the continual lack of contact by anyone involved in this arbitration, I will no longer be involved in this arbitration. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have updated this section since its original writing.

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, its discusion page, and related pages because of his frequent POV-pushing (see examples below).

Although he has made statements about "winning the battle of cold fusion," I believe they should carry very little weight for this discussion. Wikipedia authorities should judge editors on the quality of their edits and their arguments, not their opinions. In general, the way to counteract POV problems is to increase the number of editors looking at an issue, not limit it.

However, Pcarbonn's POV-pushing has been so extreme and sustained that in this case extreme measures are justified. Olorinish (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding two articles he wanted to mention: [57] [58] . It is important to note that "cold fusion" and "low energy nuclear reactions" are not synonyms. Cold fusion has notoriety because of the PF announcement and the massive worldwide reaction to it. The wikipedia "cold fusion" article describes that episode. "Low energy nuclear reactions" could simply be reactions that involve slightly lower energies than typical nuclear reactions, so articles that mention "low energy nuclear reactions" are not necessarily good sources for an encyclopedia article on cold fusion.

When describing "replication" of cold fusion: [59] [60]

By redundantly over-promoting the potential benefits of cold fusion: [61]

By removing a mainstream journal article (Hutchinson) critical of cold fusion: [62]

By calling a blog post favoring cold fusion more significant than articles in Physics Today and Discover critical of cold fusion: [63] [64]

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]

Pcarbonn has also made misleading edits pushing pro-CF POV at the "Pathological Science" page: [65] [66] [67]

Note that the third edit is especially disruptive, since he misrepresents the rfc [68] on "is CF pseudoscience?" as an rfc on "is CF pathological science?"

He is fully aware that these edits do not represent the scientific consensus of the field of nuclear reactions, but he did them because, I gather, that he does not think wikipedia should represent the scientific consensus, contrary to [69]. Just to be clear, here are some sources: [70], [71]

I am not familiar with talk page standard behavior, but this seems rude to me, since the conversation did not appear to be over.[72] Olorinish (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerknote: Contents removed. Some of the removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. On the whole it was far too long (approximately 4100 words) Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present.--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [73] 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: [74] 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 WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, 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. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion whether a scientific review, like the 2004 DOE review, is a primary or secondary source. I argue that it's a secondary, not primary source. Details.

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 [75] (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.

SA has argued for presenting cold fusion as pseudoscience, [76] 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. [77] 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 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 [78], [79] (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 [80].

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 [81], however that magazine had previously published [82] 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 [83], 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 [84]. 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. [85] 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 Robert L. Park as conceding defeat. Doing this in a summary is tendentious.

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 [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. 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 WP:LAME territory, demonstrating that both editors are engaging in a bitter POV struggle.

There was a section here where I argued that evidence presented by Olorinish wasn't relevant, but that's no longer the case: he added new evidence that is very relevant.

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 synthesis 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.

Clerknote: Contents removed. The removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present. --Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As I have been mentioned several times in the evidence presented to the Committee regarding this case (without my knowledge, I would add), I wish to observe one point regarding the proposed mentorship between myself and Fritzpoll, and ScienceApologist. This mentorship agreement was never accepted due almost exclusively to a withdrawal of interest on my part in entering into the agreement. (My reasons for doing so were my own, and not related to ScienceApologist.)

The use of this mentorship's failure to "get off the ground" as exemplification for arguments that ScienceApologist has failed to accept advice or assistance in reforming his own conduct is incorrect. ScienceApologist, in fact, was exceptionally willing to be mentored, and his co-operation was liberally forthcoming at all junctures.

Durga's Trident's evidence (#Attempts at mentorship) in particular presents this inaccurate interpretation of the attempts at mentorship. My attempt at mentoring SA did not fail because of his unwillingness to be mentored or reform.

AGK 15:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this (apologies for this post in this section) - it fell through from my point of view because of a lack of momentum from our side, not his Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has a track record of 29 blocks [94] (and counting), use of sock puppets[95] and now four ArbComs (including this one)[96][97][98]. He has arrogantly harassed, insulted and threatened Admins and users[99] that dare to cross him. To quote ScienceApologist:

There are a grand total of six administrators who I have explicitly instructed not to use administrative tools against me.

[100] Actually it is seven Admins[101][102][103][104][105][106][107] that have been bullied.

He has almost explicitly stated that he disregards WP:civil[108](ridiculing users who want to complain about his incivilities[109]) and that his goal is to attack and provoke editors he is in conflict with until they are blocked or banned.

I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned. That's my full and final goal.

[110] and,

as long as [WP:CIV] is still policy here at Wikipedia, I encourage all like-minded editors to use it to destroy [...] people

[111] and also [112][113][114]).

I'm at the point now where I don't believe any civility complaint has any merit. However, it may be politically expedient for a person to use civility to get an uninvolved drone of an administrator off their ass and block a POV-pusher... Yep, I'm Machiavellian about it, through-and-through.

[115](emphasis added). And also [116][117].

ScienceApologist edit wars continually. Example: [118][119][120] He's been doing that for a long time [121]

ScienceApologist often refuses mediation[122], or sets extreme conditions before he will accept.[123]

One of his worst formal transgressions is that he falsely presented one of his own proposals as an enacted WP by referring to it as WP:MAINSTREAM [124] [125] [126] [127]. That is, he presented a draft proposal as an enacted WP - a pure bluff - tantamount to perjury or planting false evidence in a normal court of law.

Another example is his way of referring to a “principle” he made up on his own user page (one-way linking) as if it was a part of the Wikipedia framework [128] [129]

He is one of smartest editors on WP and knows every detail of the WP policies and guidelines. He has been given countless chances to reform and comply with community rules. There are no more excuses left for him. IMO his recent “freak-out” in Nov/Dec08[130] is not in any way caused by “stress” or that he is provoked. It is just another Machiavellian way to gain sympathy and game the system. He is too smart and rational to lose control.

He portrays himself as a zealot of the official goals of Wikipedia, but that is incorrect. He is a proponent of SPOV (with an extreme interpretation)[131][132][133][134], which has been rejected by the community in favour of NPOV. He shows contempt for both the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and the project itself. Just look at:

“

"Laughable, considering the utter incompetence of many of the people responsible for the "decisions" (about the ArbCom members) …. It's petty, silly, and I hate it …. I don't care if Wikipedia survives or not, and usually hope that it fails a miserable death …"[135]

”

... every time I've acted really ANGRILY on Wikipedia I've never regretted it.

[136]

Suck my genetalia, Jimbo Wales! … Enjoy the shittiest encyclopedia on theplanet

[137]

ScienceApologist has contributed to a brutalised editing environment on Wikipedia with his thuggish editing style. His My-way-or-the-highway attitude is impossible in a collaborative environment. I think it is necessary for the WP community to do some hard thinking about how they view this project. Is this an all out war fought with no holds barred? Do we accept any means possible to suppress the various minority opinions that are unsupported by the establishment?

This evidence section is a shortened and rewritten version of an earlier evidence post on this page that was too long. Users who want to read the previous version can either go to the page history or to this subpage[138] that also is used a reference for some of the diffs in this post.

Added later: Additional examples of threats by ScienceApologist and examples of the blatant willingness to whitewash and condone gross violations of WP rules by his supporters[139] MaxPont (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist recently made an edit that threatens violence and other real-world harm against other editors. Even if the threat was made "in jest", it nonetheless constitutes reprehensible misconduct. John254 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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.