Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 12 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 made such a noise about being scientifically limited to what is observable, had 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)

A random click on one shows nothing but appropriate editing. By aggressive I meant aggressive biased editing, not merely bold. We approve of that. Fred Bauder 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dude, if you only click on one of the links, instead of following the story, you're not gonna get the story. I even included one or two good edits, just to show that he wasn't all bad. What do you expect? All negative all the time? Zero context? Get someone else to assemble the evidence. Try this one, where he takes out loads of stuff without even citation requests on it. I later cited most of it, if I correctly remember. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:09, 10 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)

Kazuba I don't know how many times I must repeat this; I am not attacking Mr. Radin. It seems to me if I were attacking someone I would be feeling some kind of emotional fervor. Ho-hum, I am not. I am merely recording and exploring historical events. Things Radin has said and wrote, things he has done, and historical events in which he has been involved, to the best of my abilities. A critical examination is more like it. Attempts WERE made to place these items as SOBERLY as I know how in the article on him, but they were ALWAYS removed. If someone did not not like my tone they could have edited my statements, rather than remove them. I'll take all the help I can get. As mentioned some of the favorite deleting excuses were: you are attempting to smear him, this material is irrevelant, and possibly the best one, again by, big Radin fan, Martinphi: information concerning Radin's research does NOT belong in HIS BIOGRAPHY. Say what? Where does it belong? Do me a favor Fred go read my exchanges with others, including Mr. Radin, on the Dean Radin discussion page. Do I seem to be excited or calm? How does Mr. Radin come across? Is it paranoia? (By the way Fred, you forgot Mr. Radin's other PSI ability, his mental control of falling dice). Here, to end this I'll make everyone happy. If you guys feel I have done anything truly wrong or dishonest I apologize and it won't happen again. User:Kazuba 9 Jun 07.

The article grew highly biased, with a lot of criticism and controversy. It would have been slanted even for an article, but for a bio it wasn't right. A Misplaced Pages bio just isn't the place for all this. A private website would be. And remember you have to have RS sources- and I doubt you will find one which says "Radin reported a bent spoon. Bent spoons are known not to occur. Therefore, Radin is a liar." Or some such. I never said that about his research. What I may have said, was that his bio is about the man primarily, not his research results, nor criticism thereof. Criticism/controversy belongs in the bio. As a side dish or desert, not the main course. You were overdoing it- and I'd say the same thing about someone I disliked. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Go look at other bios. They don't ususally have criticism sections. Look at Randi's, how small the criticism is relative to the article. Treat Radin like anyone else. Or go and expand the criticism section of your personal friend James Randi, till it takes up half the article (Yes, Kazuba knows Randi). Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba WOW! Criticism and controversy does belong in a bio. Especially within the field of parapsychology. Things can easily go overboard. Take a look at a biography of Walter Franklin Prince, Joseph Rhine, Joseph Rinn or Harry Houdini. Yeah, I guess James Randi and I go back a long way. It began with me seeking the correct scientific explanation for Kirlian photography. We communicate with each other once in a while. Usually I start it. Even though he asked my wife whether or not I was insane, he had never had met anyone like me. Martin Gardner understood a curiosity like mine, but not James Randi. Most others I have met have the same problem. "Kazuba, I just don't understand you." If Randi is my friend I am honored. If it wasn't for Randi Uri Geller would still be a star in the parapsychology labs and Project Alpha would never have taken place. Randi is not noted for his interest in history even within the conjuring world, but he is noted for his ethics. That's a goal for any man, magician or not, to shoot for. Milbourne Christopher was a historian and friend I never got to meet.User:Kazuba 10 Jun 2007

Yeah, Kazuba, I do kind of understand you, which is why I like you. I just think that we should cut Radin -and anyone else- some slack in their bio. Yeah, look at Houdini. He doesn't even have a controversy section, and he's dead. Yes, controversy, but not a lot of criticism that makes people look bad. And you can't name other people involved in the paranormal as examples of how a bio should be written, because they are likely to be mis-written the same way Radin's used to be. Note that even Rhine's criticism section is small compared to the rest of it. I really really think you should have your own website. It could be free, or only cost 3 or 4 bucks a month. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba Honest criticism is the father of improvement. Humanity learns from its mistakes. You take this PSI stuff too seriously. It ain't worth it. Go out dancing. Enjoy the moment. Read a Carl Hiaasen book and learn to have fun again. In a few moments I'm going to sit down and read Jeffery Deaver's The Devil's Teardrop to my wife. It gives her great pleasure. Just a minute ago I ran around outside with my grandchild. We chased each other with squirt guns and laughed. Enjoy your life, now! User:Kazuba 10 Jun 07

Yeah you too, Kazuba. That's why people think you're crazy, and that's why I like you. You take this history stuff too seriously. We have only the moment. (= Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:41, 11 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)

But many of those kinds of edits, where you take out something which a good faith -but uninformed- editor inserted, would count as reverts. That's the problem. And how do we know what's really going to be counted as a revert? Minderbinder and others have admin friends- and you know he's going to report you. Maybe some of the "paranormalists" have admin friends. We'd just never be able to change things, if it meant taking out another editor's stuff. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue

You seem to have it wrong with regard to at least one point concerning Perfectblue97. "Scum of the Universe" is the tag line from the movie "Men in Black" and the Mission Statement from "Men in Black II" . The character on prefect's page is dressed as a "Man in Black" from the movie (it's an anime type charicter). This isn't being uncivil, it's a linking of the Misplaced Pages-tan character with Men in Black. This is not incivility, it's pop culture.

Also, the puzzlement over what is covered in parapsychology is genuine. EVP is in fact studied by parapsychologists sometimes, as a concrete example, by David Fontana. We were both genuinely debating how to apply "parapsychology" to articles. This was not misuse, because it is genuinely debatable.

And also, Perfectblue in this edit isn't talking about reliable sources relative to science, but reliable sources relative to pop culture. So really anything popular would do fine. The debate here was not science, but notability, and the sources, again, are fine for that.

I think you're being really unfair to Perfectblue. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some links to the tag line, so you can check out the "scum of the universe" thing:

Large image: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

She originally had the phrase linked to the article on "what is a troll":

More proof that she meant it as a MIB character, where she describes her inspiration for the character:

It's interesting to note that none of the editors who objected to it mentioned anything about the "scum of the universe" tagline, it doesn't appear to have offended anyone or been thought of as something that attacked the skeptics. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)