Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 9 June 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Morven
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away

• Blnguyen
• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality
• Paul August
• Raul654

"aggressive editing"

Given that Fred Bauder himself has said that parapsychology is an "obvious pseudoscience," I am honestly confused as to why he would think something like this is "aggressive." And this isn't even touching the fact that my edit was a simple cleanup of what Fred agrees was a WP:POINT violation by Martinphi. Simões (/_contribs) 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is what I call faith-based science. However it's still a branch of psychology. And frankly behaviorism, which makes such a noise about being scientifically limited to what is observable, has its faith-based elements too, being a sort of monastic discipline sequestered from the messy realities of human experience. Fred Bauder 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside of our resident parapsychology enthusiasts, you're alone on the subdiscipline issue. All reliable outside sources do not consider it a subdiscipline. And behaviorism has been out of vogue for over forty years. But all this aside, why are you considering what I did aggressive? Simões (/_contribs) 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect more from you. Fred Bauder 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a mostly-lurking observer here, but I feel compelled to note that that isn't an answer. I expect more from an Arbitration Committee member. RedSpruce 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply dismissing it as "pseudoscience" is aggressive. Fred Bauder 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about "obvious pseudoscience"? Simões (/_contribs) 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's it. It is not obvious. On its face it looks scientific and parts of it are. Fred Bauder 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But you said it was obvious pseudoscience! Are you now deciding to contradict yourself?--ScienceApologist 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is not an obvious pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So you were wrong before? How did you figure that out? And what makes you so sure of yourself? --ScienceApologist 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I investigated the matter more fully. Fred Bauder 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Y'all might be interested in this. Can't an arbitrator change his mind?

Has no one seen the other evidence of agressive editing I inserted in the evidence page? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Dean Radin

Comments about Dean Radin on my Kazuba user page are based on documented sources and facts. My sources are plainly listed. I welcome anyone to examine them for their content. If I have made errors I will gladly delete or correct them. I love to research things well. I have explained that the Radin material exists ONLY on my user page because anything critical about Dean Radin is removed from his entry page with the flimest of excuses. This material is not biographical, Radin broomed from UNLV, (that was Martinphi), or this is insignificant information, Radin and his explanation of the Indian rope trick, (again Mr. Martinphi) or you are trying to smear his reputation. I have also tried to explain I have nothing personal against Mr. Radin. He is what he is. At the the least he is colorful. I've pretty well explained myself on my user page. As I have said I am no master of words. It is interesting if Mr. Radin says he is curious scientist he is praised. But when I say I am a curious grunt that is not okay. Kazuba 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are focusing intently on another Misplaced Pages user, both on your user page and in your editing of the article. Fred Bauder 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba It would seem only logical the Dean Radin entry on the Misplaced Pages focuses on Dean Radin. Who else would it be about? I am ordered to stay away and not research Radin to the best of my ability and show my results ANYWHERE because Radin is a Wiki user ? Therefore, he is not to be historically investigated like anyone else? He has celebrity immunity? Sounds like book burning to me.Use:Kazuba 08 Jun 07

Kazuba

15) Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was cited by Dradin as a troubling editor. Kazuba presents an extensive inventory of his positions on his user page and has made significant critical comments at User talk:Dradin.

Kazuba

5) Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Kazuba and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

This is what we are talking about. Just don't overdo it in the way you have in the past. He's an editor in good standing, not a snake. Fred Bauder 18:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba Many of the criticisms raised by Mr. Radin on his user page pertain to outdated revised materials formerly on my user page. Radin has not kept up to date with my latest user page revisions.(I claim the right to change my mind if new evidence is discovered). I agree with you Mr. Radin is not a snake, but from what I have observed his honesty, selectivity as is his own claimed personal PK abilities are questionable. As for Mr. Radin's own valuable comments; he prefers to make himself, his work, his cronies, and even J. Z. Knight look good. I am honored that he found me a troublesome editor. Perhaps I've lowered his credibility, book sales and lecture fees. Possibly this is what this complaint is all about. Over and out.User:Kazuba 08 Jun 07

Misplaced Pages does not offer resolution of the issues you raise. If he reports a spoon grew soft and he bent it that's good, as an interesting fact (not that any spoon was bent, but that he reported it). That such claims cast doubt on his integrity is also good, as an interesting fact. These things need to presented in the article on him, in a sober conservative way, not presented as part of a personal campaign against him. That is where you are going wrong. Fred Bauder 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Although I'll be doing little editing of Misplaced Pages in the future, I'd like to register my consternation that the paranormal articles are being handed over to the skeptics, who have many more occasional editors. Reverting the occasional editors who insert unfounded bias into the articles is necessary. It would be much much better (if you have to do this at all) to say that frequent editors of the paranormal get only one rv a week against each other. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a small example, this edit, removed by Nealparr. It isn't skeptically biased, but it is an example of what needs reverting very very often. The articles simply can't do without reversion! Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole is an experimental remedy. In the case of the cited edit, cleaned of the misspellings, it is not that remarkable. Fred Bauder 13:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)