User:Pcarbonn/Cold fusion dispute

Timeline of the cold fusion dispute

As Edmund Burke said : "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Here is a timeline of the cold fusion dispute. To explore the history of an article, I recommend TimeTraveller:

• Dec 13, 2001 : the article is created
• April 26, 2004 : my first contribution to the topic
• Aug 16, 2004 : this version is promoted to Featured Article status, and goes on the front page of wikipedia
• Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of lenr-canr.org obtains a contribution defending the reality of cold fusion from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher.
• Jan 3 2006 : first reversal to 2004 FA version after poll
• 7 April 2006 : SCZenz finds that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that I found extremely important
• April 2006 : Jed Rothwell withdraws from wikipedia after defending vehemently the reality of cold fusion, despite my effort to calm him down.
• April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? Why do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ?
• Oct 2006 : The skeptics reject the mediation proposed by Ron Marshall. The ArbComm rejects the case introduced by the same
• 2007 : the article is pretty stable, and represents the full 2004 DOE review
• Oct-Nov 2007 : I update the theory section : that's too much, say the skeptics
• 6 Dec 2007 : reversal to FA version by JzG.
• 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith encourages me to continue : thanks !!
• Dec 2007 : I introduce a second case to the Arbitration Committee, which rejects it . Ron Marshall quits Wikipedia.
• Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept mediation. Seicer accepts to mediate. THe leading skeptics is blocked several times for incivility.
• May 2008 : I write my account of the mediation in New Energy Times
• May 2008 : Dank55 helps bring it to Good Article status
• July 2008 : a RfC concludes that cold fusion is not pseudoscience.
• July 2008 : ScienceApologist asks that I be banned from the cold fusion page because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected.
• July 2008 : JzG reverts the page again. This time it is rejected by the community.
• September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work.
• October 2008 : ScienceApologist again wants me banned, this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. IwRnHaA adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. That's too much for the skeptics. ScienceApologist says this is a sock puppet account. It is accepted. ScienceApologist then wants to delete this history of the cold fusion page. It is rejected.
• December 2008 : The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has decided to review the situation with the cold fusion article.[1] It reached the conclusion that I should be banned from the cold fusion article for one year.[2] I found this decision unjust, and a great danger for wikipedia.[3] Simultaneously, there was an election to confirm / replace arbitrators.[4] Comments from voters have convinced Jimbo Wales that the community was unhappy with the past Arbitration Committee.[5] I have introduced an appeal to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, asking him to cancel one of the key arguments to ban me.[6] Simultaneously, the Arbitration Committee has been requested to review the behavior of ScienceApologist.[7]