At 05:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially
clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia.
I looked about and didn't see where he was "threatened with
arbitration," which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants
is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win.
Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which
is not arbitration, it is where the "community" enforces
arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics.
5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction
>
If you continue to waste other editors time with your original
research, the next step is arbitration enforcement
Alan, do you know what "arbitration enforcement" is? Hint: it is not
arbitration. Essentially, the editor threatened to ask that you be
sanctioned for "wasting other editor's time," which, pretty much, you
were. That was rude, but the cabal is not polite, it's not their
style. A functional community would educate you in what is okay and
what is not. The cabal just wants you gone. *You* are the waste of
time, for them, really, but they can't say that.
But I didn't check on the specific editor.
Do you know what "original research" means, and why it would be
applied to what you wrote? Do you understand why primary sources are
generally not usable, though sometimes it is allowed with consensus?
Of course, is the E-cat "cold fusion"?
Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this
article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was
off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR
research are of no relevence.
.... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump>AndyTheGrump
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump>talk) 18:46,
14 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called
E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction
(LENR) heat source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR
is definitely allowable.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777>Alanf777
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanf777>talk) 18:57, 14
September 2012 (UTC)
That's one of the problems with the E-Cat article! It assumes that it
is properly categorized with cold fusion. It's not known if it is
fusion at all. Cold fusion is really a popular name for LENR, but, in
fact, it's been shown that the original discovered reaction is --
with very high likelihood -- some form of deuterium fusion, known
from the heat/helium ratio. I've said "high likelihood." It's not
absolutely proven.
AndyTheGrump's comment above is reasonable. You are now citing
Wikipedia as a source.... Who says that the E-Cat is "cold fusion" or
"LENR." It might be. And it might not be. If the energy turns out to
be real and sustainable, it could be ... LENR, but it could also be
due to hydrinos, or something else. We wouldn't know if it is fusion
until the ash is identified and shown to be correlated properly with
the heat. The same with any LENR.
Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device.
A thing purports to be nothing. People create purport.
Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he
doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is
going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the
article.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump>AndyTheGrump
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump>talk) 20:07,
14 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, Andy is correct. Now, the E-Cat is notable and there are
reliable sources regarding it (which has little or nothing to do with
truth.) I'm not necessarily supporting his content positions, but he
was, as I recall, not the worst editor involved with the E-Cat. I
think his name is appropriate, he's a bit grumpy.
In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is
a bit crazy.
I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it
was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).
Here is what I did on Wikipedia. I had a long-term interest in
community consensus process, and when I started to edit Wikipedia in
2007, I became familiar with the policies and guidelines and was
tempered in that by the mentorship of a quite outrageous editor who
showed me, by demonstration, the difference or gap between policies
and guidelines and actual practice. I was quite successful, and that
included dealing with POV-pushers and abusive administrators, which
is quite hazardous on Wikipedia. If you want to survive, don't notice
and document administrative abuse. Administrators don't like it,
*especially* if you are right. Only administrators, in practice, are
long-term allowed to do that, with a few exceptions who are protected
by enough administrators to survive.
So if you want to affect Wikipedia content in a way that will stick,
relatively speaking, you will need to become *intimately* familiar
with policies. You can do almost anything in this process, except be
uncivil or revert war. That is, you can make lots of mistakes, but
*slowly*. What I saw you doing was making lots of edits. Andy asked
you to slow down. That was a reasonable request. But I'd add, "... and listen."
Instead, it appears you assumed that the position of the other
editors was ridiculous. For some, perhaps. But you, yourself, didn't
show a knowledge of Reliable Source and content policies.
Lots of editors have gone down this road. It's fairly easy to find
errors and imbalance in the Wikipedia Cold fusion article. However,
fixing them is not necessarily easy, there are constituencies
attached to this or that, and averse to this or that. I actually took
the issue of the Storms Review to WP:RSN, and obtained a judgment
there that this was basically RS. Useless, because *there were no
editors willing to work on the article who were not part of the
pseudoskeptical faction.* By that time, I certainly couldn't do it
alone, I was WP:COI, voluntarily declared as such.
When the community banned me, you can be sure that it was not
mentioned that I had been following COI guidelines, and only working
on the Talk page, except where I believed an edit would not be
controversial. The same thing happened with PCarbonn and, for that
matter, with Jed Rothwell. All were following COI guidelines.
The problem wasn't the "bad guys," the problem was an absence of
"good guys." There were various points where editors not with an
agenda to portry cold fusion as "pathological science," assembled,
and I found that when the general committee was presented with RfCs,
sanity prevailed. But that takes work, and the very work was framed
by the cabal as evidence of POV-pushing. When I was finally topic
banned, where was the community? There were only a collection of
factional editors, plus a few "neutral editors" who took a look at
discussions that they didn't understand and judged them to be "wall
of text." Bad, in other words, and the discussion that was used as
the main evidence was actually not on Wikipedia, it was on meta,
where it was necessary. And where it was successful.
Yes, I was topic banned on Wikipedia for successfully creating a
consensus on the meta wiki to delist lenr-canr.org from the global
blacklist. And then the same editors as before acted, frequently, to
remove links, giving the same bankrupt arguments, and nobody cares.
So all that work was almost useless.
That is why so many sane people have given up on Wikipedia, and
because so many sane people have given up, what's left?
There would be a way to turn this situation around, but what I've
seen is that not enough people care. It might take two or three. Seriously.
