Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:POVbrigand/list: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:00, 9 August 2012

User:POVbrigand/list

The page looks like a BLP violation: a badly sourced list of purported cold fusion researchers on a user subpage. The owner of the subpage is topic banned from this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no valid reason that a topic-banned user should have anything at all about the topic in their user space. Agree that there are serious BLP issues. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the deletion should be extended to all Cold Fusion related content on this editors subpages: User:POVbrigand/ICCF, User:POVbrigand/papers, User:POVbrigand/material, User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any link showing User:POVbrigand topic banned from the cold fusion topic. Please post a link so that we can read about the topic ban. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Arbitration Enforcement, T. Canens proposed a topic ban, from anything to do with CF or fringe science, for POVbrigand.[2] MastCell then agreed to trigger discretionary sanctions (without specifying anything specific). NW (NuclearWarfare) agreeded with T. Canes ("If a 3 month topic ban can be supported (as per T. Canens), I propose that we make it indefinite instead."). Fut.Perf agreed with T. Canes, and The Blade of the Northern Lights said "I'll close this implementing NuclearWarfare's solution" (which presumably meant T. Canens' solution since NW agreeded with T. Canens). So, they all seemed to be in agreement and that would support your request above. The problem I'm having is that the link you provided,[3] says "POVbrigand indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences." Now, that doesn't appear to be what arbcom agreed to (T. Canens' proposal being indefinite), but that is the scope of the topic ban. User:POVbrigand/list is not an article. The ban started on 14:37, 25 June 2012[4] and I don't see anything after that date and time relative to the User:POVbrigand/list page that shows POVbrigand engaging in a discussion on the topic. If you can get The Blade of the Northern Lights to change the topic ban to cover anything to do with CF or fringe science (or at least POVbrigand's user pages), then we can delete the above user page. However, without that change, we may need a reason other than the topic ban to delete the page. (Also, you may want to add the other CF user pages to this MfD before such addition becomes untimely.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The principal reason is the BLP violation. I will also ask the blade for confirmation of the scope of the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request on my talkpage, yes this would be covered under the topic ban in place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just two months ago, a researcher asked to be removed from the cold fusion article, saying that it was misrepresenting his research. His name has been removed from the article, but not from this userspace draft. There is no official lists of researchers of this field, this is just a hand-picked compilation of sources, at the discretion of a wikipedia editor that has been topic banned from the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had email contact with that researcher, his reply to whether he considers himself a LENR researcher was: "yes and no". Your representation of said researchers wishes regarding his mentioning in the wiki article are wrong, he did not want to get deleted, he wanted to be represented with different wording. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He gave two options: changing the wording so it doesn't mention cold fusion, or removing his name completely. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he gave two options. As I am topic banned, there is no point in further explanation. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your above posts are contributing to discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences, even though the ban reads "POVbrigand indefinitely banned from all discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [5] for IRWolfie's original attempt to get this "work in progress" deleted. Since the topic ban I have not edited this list at all, what will happen if the topic ban is lifted and I want to continue work on this list ? I will blank the page, maybe that solves the issue. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you use a computer to access Wikipedia? Try using it to store the page as a local file. You can edit and preview it to your heart's content. Franamax (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic banned user should not have this material in userspace. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the topic ban extending to the user pages of POVbrigand per The Blade of the Northern Lights' post above. WP:UP allows editors to include work in progress in their user pages for a limited time (about three months). Even without the topic ban extending into the user pages of POVbrigand, banning POVbrigand from contributing to articles having anything to do with CF or fringe science means that CF or fringe science content within his user pages cannot be work in progress (due to the ban). That means that CF or fringe science content within his user pages would amount to nothing more than a personal website and there is no time grace period for WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find the "limited time (about three months)" you are referring to on WP:UP --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not edited anything on this list since I was topic banned. I cannot find any time-limit regarding work-in-progress pages. I cannot find any guidelines regarding deleting UP for indefinite topic banned users. The BLP issue was raised before on the dedicated BLP noticeboard and no action was taken then. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons clearly exposed by POVbrigand. Concerning that page, he did not violate any rule IMHO. In any case, there are two things which are very different: 1) the topic ban, clearly not violated by POVbrigand, and 2) the "lawfulness" about the list itself accordingly to the "Wikipeadian law". Concerning this second issue, please inform me because I have a similar page too: User:NUMB3RN7NE/list. Thanks. --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have two BLP violations. I think it is a bad idea duplicating a page which is being discussed as a BLP violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my list is a BLP violation, you should bring it up at BLP noticeboard where the BLP experts will gladly look into it. You actually already did that a last year and no action resulted ! Trying to get your right at different forums is called WP:FORUMSHOP. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was one reply. They agreed it was a BLP violation. I'll post to BLPN and notify them if you like. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The math here is pretty easy, in all honesty. WP:STALEDRAFT says it's inappropriate to "indefinitely host" works-in-progress. POVbrigand cannot work on this list, "indefinitely". It's pretty clear that this, and all of hir other Cold Fusion/Fringe Science subpages should be deleted per that rationale. Achowat (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, this stuff does look pretty stale given its BLP implications. There were only two small edits to the page since the end of March, and POVbrigand made no edits to it at all since 12 June (six weeks before he was topic-banned); even leaving aside the topic ban, and even assuming for the sake of argument that creating this list temporarily might be appropriate under BLP, there's no need for this BLP minefield to be lurking around in userspace for months on end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my list is a BLP violation, you should bring it up at BLP noticeboard where the BLP experts will gladly look into it. It was actually already done last year and no action resulted ! --POVbrigand (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because the people here aren't smart enough to understand the BLP policies? Achowat (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because a BLP noticeboard exists where BLP experienced and non-involved editors will be happy to assess the situation. When researchers are actively researching the field, how in the world can it be seen as BLP to put those researchers on a list ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And MFD is where non-involved editors with expertise on Userpage guidelines are happy to assess the situation. The very fact that a listed researcher asked to be no longer listed shows that it's a contentious label and, as such, inclusion on this list is an issue concerning the BLP policies. Now whether they run afoul to those policies is an issue of discussion. Achowat (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleted

The issue is that, even if we agree with you that BLP is not an issue, you still have inherent WP:STALEDRAFT problems. Achowat (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should not go into detail because of my topic ban - i self reverted my previous comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a stale draft. Currently many new sources become available and once I am no longer topic banned I will incorporate them into the draft and tidy everything up. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::::::::The issue is that, even if we agree with you that BLP is not an issue, you still have inherent [[WP:STALEDRAFT]] problems. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 17:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 :::::::::Sorry I should not go into detail because of my topic ban - i self reverted my previous comment. --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 17:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
+::::::::::No it is not a stale draft. Currently many new sources become available and once I am no longer topic banned I will incorporate them into the draft and tidy everything up. --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)