Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was  Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pcarbonn
This is essentially an attack page which maligns me and User:JzG personally. I want references to myself removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Miscellany for deletion" is not the proper place for this discussion. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is per WP:ATTACKPAGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page documents the history of the cold fusion page. It has not been created to "primarily disparage its subject", and thus, isn't an attack page.  It provides numerous links in support of what it says.  I'm sorry that you consider these facts as maligning you, but there are facts nevertheless, not personal attacks.   Pcarbonn (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These are not "facts", they are your interpretations of what happened and are presented in a way that tries to malign me. For example, I have not been blocked for editing cold fusion. Yet you claim I have. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it says you were "blocked for editing cold fusion" there. It says ". ScienceApologist blocked multiple times for incivility." I do think the wording could be a bit more neutral... phrasing like "Total despair... " carries connotation, not just denotation. I'd again ask why this page needs to be worded the way it is, in this particular place. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know whether it is Wikipedia policy to allow people to trumpet about the blocks of their enemies. If this is the case, I'll start listing the blocks of the people I find most objectionable. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know where it says you can have a block log a page and a half long and not expect anyone to ever bring it up. If you don't want people mentioning your blocks, don't get blocked.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to go back in time and fix that for you? Because I think that may be possible with rude, uncivil attitudes like that fueling my time machine. Or are you just incapable of assuming good faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that your reputation proceeds you, and if you think people aren't going to take it into account, or shouldn't take it into account, you're wrong. And if rude and uncivil comments are a source of fuel now, then you, my friend, have a resource much more valuable than cold fusion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone's reputation proceeds them, that does not give someone license to characterize a list of historical blocks as relevant to the story of an article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and speedily even. This is not an attack page, and does not "malign" anyone.  It simply states facts, and in my outside opinion, states them neutrally.  Plus, the nom isn't actually asking for deletion anyways.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is claiming that I was blocked for being involved in cold fusion not maligning me when that in fact did not happen? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He claims you were blocked for incivility. Which you were.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As the recipient of the incivility on which a block was based, I can affirm that SA was blocked for incivility during his involvement in cold fusion debate. Ronnotel (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - as someone completly outside the topic and who watches MfD mostly for nominations for deletion of User pages, I do not see this userpage as falling outside the guidelines of WP:UP. The history of events is listed with appropriate diffs which allow any and all to make a determination of the facts.  The only thing I might suggest to Pcarbonn would perhaps moving that history section of the page onto a subpage and just provide a link on your user page -- sometimes less visible means less agravation.  As I have said, I have no issue with it being there, but I would be curious as to why Pcarbonn feels it nessesary to retain the timeline.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no personal attacks here. Ronnotel (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also do not see any personal attacks, but I have to question what the purpose of this material being on the userpage is. Perhaps that could be clarified by the user? ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As Edmund Burke said : "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." That's the reason for this page.  Pcarbonn (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any apparent personal attacks, I vote keep. Master&amp;Expert  ( Talk ) 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable collection of references supporting a user's perspective.  Nominator is being too sensitive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Obviously something strange is happening here. And obviously the underlying issue is the Cold fusion article. It would be nice if Pcarbonn reconsiders it. At a quick glance, reading the article references, I found strange things:
 * 1. Just per this reference from the article ("Cold-fusion demonstration “a success”"), please, check the link in his comments-signature (comments signed with his real name): a link to the Wikipedia Cold fusion article. Currently Pcarbonn is a single purpose account (mainspace contributions) and he considers "Cold Fusion" his own user page.
 * 2. His comment-invitation in the same reference "I invite all the skeptics on this blog to go to the cold fusion article on wikipedia and make any corrections that they feel necessary" (comment in the same reference), might be promoting battleground.


 * What the fuck has Wikipedia into this controversy? Why this interest in involving Wikipedia? Let the reality-stuff runs, aside Wikipedia. This is should be an Encyclopedia.
 * My reasoning for delete: as Pcarbonn is heavily involved in the off-wiki controversy, and because of his interest in involving Wikipedia, his user page is currently a bridge to the battleground, in where you can find a selective explanation with some users quoted as parties. Just choose the party, and begin the fight (if you choose his party, follow his dialectic-instructions from his user page, his method "How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia", may be this method-idea comes from ScienceApologist user page, I dunno). At least, strange thing. --Owdki talk 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the method-idea comes from ScienceApologist, whose rules for dealing with pseudoscience in his user page largely predates mine. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you there. Do you have a specific version I should be looking at? When I go to ScienceApologist's page now, what I see is a rather thorough discussion of how our article writing guidelines (such as WP:UNDUE WP:RS WP:NPOV and others) apply specifically to pseudoscience articles, with a large number of highly relevant things to watch out for. Might quibble with a bit here and there but it strikes me as a very useful page. And it's even fairly neutrally worded (not completely, but fairly). I am afraid that your current page, while it might be in the envelope, is a lot closer to the edge. I again repeat my suggestion that you dial back a bit, try to be more neutral in your wording, and consider making much or all of this material into a subpage, instead of the first thing people see when they come to your page. Polemics are to be avoided. I've said keep but that doesn't mean I approve of your page. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems (from an uninvolved POV) like a reasonably fair summary of some of the work Pcarbonn has done on here. I know nothing of any off-Wiki drama; if that is true it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. I see no personal attacks on the page; however, I would humbly suggest to Pcarbonn that moving it to userspace so those interested can read it would be a good move in the interest of minimizing dramah. But, as MfD goes, and on the consensus so far in this discussion, this is not a delete. --John (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second the suggestion to move it to a subpage. And perhaps try to change the tone to be more neutral. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Move it to a subpage and try to change the tone to be more neutral.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Bad Faith nomination. Not an attack page. Contains no personal attacks. A record of edit history is perfectly acceptable use of user space. Pcarbonn's underlying interests in peddling pseudoscience and/or disputes with alleged victims is of no relevance to this matter.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but there is no need for the material to be kept by the user, and would encourage them to change the content. Keep the summary if they wish, but there is no need for it to be in its present form. Verbal   chat  18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kinda like a delete, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really as it isn't a condition. I'm asking the user to refactor or remove any material which is not neutral or upsets other editors. It can be replaced in a form that is neutral and wouldn't upset other editors. However, the guide to keeping fringe science should also be altered as fringe science is against policy. Perhaps a guide on how to show a field isn't fringe would be better. Verbal   chat  09:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, you and I are on the same page. Keep but with an ask/advisory, (not a demand/requirement) that it ought to be dialed back/toned down/moved/revised. Sorry for confusion. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Pcarbonn instead. Reading the page and looking at a summary of the editing by this account, this is a self-evidently a single-purpose account with no interest in the project. I don't much care if Pcarbonn thinks Wikipedia is a soapbox, the charitable version which AGF suggests, or whether there is a more sinister explanation as SA claimed. Wikipedia should have no place for an editor who has spent four years like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any part of WP:SPA that says they're not allowed or that they necessarily have "no interest in the project". On the contrary, see here.  The user simply has a strong interest in one particular area, and personally, I think 4 years of dedication is pretty impressive.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the statement that SA has been blocked several times during mediation. SA has behaved beter recently. No need to harrass him. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.