User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RSN[edit]

FTN[edit]

Other Noticeboards[edit]

Efforts to get me banned[edit]

Response to Arbitrition case[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand

Filing dissected[edit]

I used this version and added several line breaks.

1 - Sanction - AfD Patterson Power Cell 1[edit]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Enforcement
Topic Banning seems most suitable as it is a long term issue, he appears to have a major conflict of interest
with the article as is seen from the vast amount of material on cold fusion on his user pages as noted
by others. He thinks many editors are "Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue.
Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off
and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia."
[2][3][4]
I do not have a conflict of interest. I have no real life ties to cold fusion nor the people working in that area. Conflict of interest is not measured by the amount of eagerness an editor exhibits to know everything about a certain topic. Conflict of interest is when an editor has a real life benefit by the way a topic is portrayed in a wikipedia article.
The bolded quotation and the first diff are taken from my Talk Page. It is an explanation to another editor of why "I do not think that we can start splitting up articles to separate old stories from new developments." ie in two separate articles "cold fusion" and "LENR". I used colourful language to make it very clear that there would be a huge opposition to such a proposal and that it would be a waste of time (for both sides).
The second diff is from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell_(2nd_nomination). It was a reply to a personal attack from a sock puppet of a banned user who said "but I have a feeling that a checkuser would reveal you to be a banned editor, POVbrigand, probably someone like Pcarbonn or LossIsNotMore or Abd or one of the dozens of other haunting figures that dominate cold fusion talk archives. "
The third diff is identical with the second. What ? Yes, I double checked in the original filing, they're identical.
So, the requester wants to show as many diffs as possible, therefore he not only used extreme cherry picking, but he also used them twice so they look like more.

2 - Original filing - NASA 1[edit]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
See [5] for some diffs. A cursory glance at Cold Fusion and Energy Catalyzer may also be helpful.
If more diffs are required I can get more. This list isn't exhaustive.
This corresponds to the original filing, only this bit. The provided link is now in the archive.
"A cursory glance may be helpful ?" I think the requester must present meaningful diffs in his filing and not a "go look for yourself" invitation.
I replied in my preliminary statement.
The first diff comes from Talk:Cold_fusion#All_mention_of_NASA_has_been_deleted_from_this_article and discusses the interpretation of a NASA website about Cold Fusion. On the bottom of the page is the date and author (Page Last Updated: November 12, 2009 - Page Editor: Kathleen Zona - NASA Official: Brian Dunbar). Based on this page, the requester draws his conclusion that "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously". I responded that his conclusion comes from his prejudice on the topic and explained how the web page does not support his conclusion.
The second and third diff do not concern me, why bring them up here ?
The extra link (within the link) is from a wikiquette complaint. The editors there already assessed that there is no personal attack. Why bring it up here again ?

3 - Current Science 1[edit]

Direct diffs: [6]
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science
This is about the journal "Current Science". On Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science the requester argued that "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal." and wouldn't budge from that position.
Assessment from another editor on Talk:Cold_fusion:
Indeed, amongst journals calling themselves "multidisciplinary" Current Science H-index of 55 ranks 7/77 [7] and its SJR of 0.053 ranks 18/77. [8] These are certainly respectable values, though still far below the top-ranked (by IF, SJR, and H-index) Nature, Science, and PNAS. With that information, I would agree that the journal is not so obscure as to be a reason to question the reliability of the paper.
Assessment from an uninvolved editor on RS/N:
It has a full editorial board and has been in print since 1932. It seems reliable enough for that statement.

4 - NASA 1 (bis)[edit]

He refers to me having a "prejudiced POV" [9] and when I complain about this characterization as a personal attack
against me he misconstrues another editors comments to make what appears to me another personal attack. THe diff
he refers to is when I commented on a thread where someone was making a wikiquette assistance complaint. [10]
(original complaint here: [11])
The first diff is used for the second time. It's from Talk:Cold_fusion#All_mention_of_NASA_has_been_deleted_from_this_article. That was about the NASA webpage that the requester used for the conclusion that "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously". I scrutinized his conclusion, he thinks that is a personal attack, which it isn't. Another editor also concluded that it was no personal attack. . I mentioned the "wikiquette assistance" to inform his that maybe his perception of "a personal attack" might be different from the rest of wikipedia.

5 - Civility[edit]

He has a battlefield mentality when he refers to me being a "team mate" of another editor with [12].
More teams: [13]. [14]
"I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant
editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth." [15]
The first diff is a duplicate because it is also one of the nested diffs in the original filing which is still referred to at the top. It is from User_talk:Olorinish#Civility where I highlight to an editor that he is constantly complaining that I am uncivil, but he fully ignores similar cases from other editors who share his POV. In the edit comment I say that "He should also complain about his team mates". How is that a battlefield mentality ?
The second diff is my advice to an editor to Stay Cool when other editors ridiculed him with the wording "Go peddle your magic beans elsewhere." and "another fighter for Truth".
The third diff is similar to the first. I highlighted to the same editor who was constantly complaining about my uncivility, but ignored other editors conduct, ie he was "only picking on me".
The bolded line is from the same piece of my talk page as the bolded line from the beginning. I say that I am not willing to split up the cold fusion article in two separate articles and that I will stick to editing cold fusion and will not waste my time in convincing other editors that the article should be split up.

6 - Current Science 2[edit]

He also attempts to wikilaywer to get his way such as requesting reliable sources to prove that a
source is unreliable: [16].
The source at issue was a scientific journal where one of the papers used had "review" of 1 day.
Several uninvolved editors on RSN noted that it was unreliable:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science
(note that when he first brought it to RSN he tried to represent it as a magazine not a journal when it had already
been pointed out that it was not a magazine [17], [18]).
From Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science.
This is again about "Current Science". I don't think I was wikilaywering at all.
The requester used his WP:OR to draw conclusions that were wrong.
"Several uninvolved editors on RSN noted that it was unreliable" is incorrect. On RS/N there was one who agreed with the requester and there was one who agreed with me. And there was one who voiced a middle opinion. On the talk page there were the usual involved editors who will regularly dismiss anything I bring to the talk page.
"Journal" vs "Magazine". "he tried to present..". My goodness, it was not malice, maybe he should try WP:AGF himself for a change.

7 - NASA 2[edit]

Unnecessarily assuming bad faith: [19]
He is attempting to consistently wikilaywer to have NASA mentioned in the article even though the
scientist concerned expressed serious doubts about Cold fusion saying that it was not reproducible etc [20].
Both diffs are from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Amazing_amount_of_nonsense
The editor who started this sub-thread has a very interesting edit history Special:Contributions/Hudn12. I think that really looks like a sock puppet account.
It is about NASA again. In his blog the scientist (Zawodny) did not express doubts about the fact that he is indeed performing research on LENR at NASA, which was what I proposed should be in the article. The NASA LENR video is WP:SPS and the blog of the researcher is also WP:SPS and BOTH state that LENR research is happening at NASA.
For reference - Joe Zawodny blog: [21]
For reference - NASA LENR video: [22]

8 - AfD Patterson Power Cell 2[edit]

[23][24]
The first diff is again from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell_(2nd_nomination) and again about the same banned user who appeared to be just trolling.
The second diff ? What is that, I corrected his link. What does this diff have to do in an arbcom case ?

9 - Simply reusing his own words[edit]

He finds it necessary to attack the scientific ability of others (although he does not appear to be
a scientist): [25]
I simply reused his wording: "Perhaps you are unaware what peer review is. ...". How can reusing somebody's wording be misunderstood as a personal attack ?

10 - Current Science 3[edit]

Comment "What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?" doesn't seem
to be WP:AGF. [26]
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science
Again "Current Science". What else can you say if somebody just won't budge.

11 - Policy shopping[edit]

Accusing me of policy shopping: [27].
From Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41#newenergytimes
He first brings WP:RS for the reason of his delete, I contest that. He then turns to WP:OR because I counted the number of peer reviewed papers and used the word "numerous" to signify the number 23. How is that WP:OR ?
Finally he brings up WP:UNDUE.
To me that is policy shopping. If he doesn't want me to say such things, he should just refrain from doing it.
His explanation for this behaviour was of course not Policy Shopping. He said something about Wikipedia:Don't_stuff_beans_up_your_nose, which has absolutely nothing to do with it.

12 - Yeong E. Kim[edit]

Mid discussion at RSN he kept reinserting the line under consideration when the consensus was against
its inclusion: [28],[29].
(it was not until a separate secondary source was found that due weight was established)
It was from the very beginning that an uninvolved editor assessed that it was NOT a case of undue weight.
I have discussed the Kim "story" in my Arbcom statement

13 - "WP articles should not expound fringe theories"[edit]

I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the
wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories. I came across the issues with the articles solely through
the fringe theories noticeboard. I have no more interest in Cold Fusion than any other fringe science
wikipedia article.
He has no interest in Cold Fusion and he is completely ignorant of the minority view on Cold Fusion. But he is very certain that what he knows is absolutely right.
I am not a native speaker, but I think that "expounding" is what WP is for, no ?

14 - Group[edit]

It seems there is a group of editors who are trying to make Cold Fusion seem mainstream by the careful
cherry picking of sources (and in fact they argue it is mainstream).

Latest edits: IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 

84.106.* has also taken onto himself to try and blank this section: [30]
IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:and again [31]

For those concerned I updated my filing, the original filing is here: [32]
IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:Note also that my original filing consists of a link to 3 divs with another link to 8 more divs.
IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
When I talk about him being part of a team, he thinks that is battlefield mentality. From his comment here he thinks I am part of a group.
The rest of this section does not concern me.

15 - Equality[edit]

POVbrigand still finds it necessary to make digs at me on the talk page in discussions I am
not involved in: [33] IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The diff is from today. From Talk:Cold_fusion#POV_tag.3F. I highlighted parallels between Enric's comment [34] and my comment, which is brought up in the Arbcom case as evidence of a personal attack.







Response to Arbitrition case - material[edit]

building blocks[edit]

It will take some time to find all evidence of this:

I have full willingness to cooperated with Arbcom. I adhere to the WP-principles (5 Pillars)

I agree with the requestor that there are several IPs and SPAs editing the article or talk page, but I do not draw the conclusion that this must be caused by sock puppeteers. I think it is because "cold fusion" is in the news since last year.

I get the impression that the requestor is concerned that I am a sock puppet user, so again I will waive any requirement to checkuser me. So we can settle that point once and for all.


tried to calm down other editors.

I have used the normal way of discussion to convince other editors of my edit proposal, I have used the Noticeboards several times to get an outside opinion on my proposed edit. for instance, in a recent discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_on_Cold_Fusion I asked the question if recent news indicates that the view on cold fusion is changing. User:Mathsci immediately replied that I was "advocating personal views" and implied that I was misusing the noticeboard. Yet, later on in the discussion other editors were willing to somewhat agree to the point I was making. Consensus can change.

There are numerous times where I have edited or discussed to advance "the majority view" to achieve NPOV or where I deleted non-RS pro-CF sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

I have conceded Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_41#newenergytimes after a long discussion in which I criticized User:IRWolfie-s argumentation. I was attacked by User:TenOfAllTrades and he accused me of sock puppeting and being a stubborn POV pusher with a I-didn't hear that attitude AFTER I conceded.

In my opinion, up till now I have made one single "major" wrong assessment.

The current disagreement on mentioning NASA research on LENR was (re-)initiated when a completely new SPA editor Special:Contributions/Hudn12 deleted it.

The current disagreement on whether the general dismissal quote: "Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review." of the Indian Journal "Current Science" is appropriate, for which there is strong evidence that that is not.

A good example of the hard work to get NPOV can be found in these discussions on mentioning Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal in Energy Catalyzer. It started of with the addition of a mainstream science blog debunking the device. Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#.27ScienceBlogs.27_article_on_the_E-Cat. Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#Yeong_E._Kim_paper, Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#RSN_yeong, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems. In the end the mentioning of Kim in the article was accepted. During these discussion the requestor did not object when other editors got ridiculed by comparing cold fusion with unicorn poop. One of the diffs he provided here as evidence was due to this ridiculing.

Even when disagreeing I have let other editors know that I appreciate their work.

In the past the editor has supported or brought "cases" against me without achieving the desired effect.

It is claimed that I have a battlefield mentality. I can understand that some editors see it that way, but to get a point across and convince people it is inherently that you have to argue sometimes a bit stronger and longer. I may have used "strong wording" occasionally, but within the heat of the debate, I think it cannot be considered out of proportion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards&oldid=480119621"