User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 54
Private musings edit
I have indented your vote here. Regards, Nathan 02:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Fred, just to let you know you've voted twice on the above RfArb. I've taken the liberty of commenting your votes out, so as to prevent any misjudgements by observers or other Arbitrators; I'll leave the removing of them to you. Anthøny 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Privatemusings is now limited to using one, single account to edit Wikipedia, and must obtain the Arbitration Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Furthermore, Privatemusings is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely: he is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Details of the enforcement regarding these Remedies is detailed here.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 13:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The 90 day remedy was left out. I've corrected it. It is available at the link above. Nathan 15:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Kherli edit
You were a member of the arb committee for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g. [1], [2]. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.--Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Shoring up your term edit
Fred,
I read the signpost, and I've noticed the fast clip of finishing up cases over the past couple of weeks. Despite the fact that you're not running for reelection, I saw that you have contributed to your share of judicial effort during your last weeks on the job. Good show. I hope that the freshmen arbiters prove themselves to be as dedicated as some of the outgoing ones.
All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis? edit
did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis? Yes. I began the article on 21 May 2005 and Frothy has made it what it is today. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We repeated warnings to people as early as 21 May 2005 : ""Let's assume for a moment that enough people get fooled, and the refinancing boom gets extended for another year. Then what? The real problem hits. Because if you think Greenspan's being cagey on refinancing, the truth he's really avoiding talking about is that we're in the midst of a huge housing bubble, on a scale only seen once before since the Depression. Worse, the inflated housing market is now in an historically unique position, as the motor of the rest of the economy. Within the next year or two, that bubble is likely to burst, and when it does, it very well may take the American economy down with it." Washington Monthly 2004 April" WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cold Fusion Decision edit
The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.
I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.
Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.
Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.
This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.
The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.
Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.
I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.
You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.
There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Musings relative to some AfD discussions edit
Hi! I've had some thoughts recently, and I thought I'd share them with you in hope of the potential of your input. I've admired your administrative (in the usual sense, not only confined to adminship) contributions to Wikipedia for a long time, especially relating to ArbCom. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member or Wikinfo (though I don't discount the future possibility), but I've seen countless cases on WP:AfD and other fora of notable dissension, where the major issue at hand is the insurmountable problem of Original Research. It has recently struck me that in many of these cases, it might be feasible to defuse much of the tension with a user talk template similar to {{uw-nor1}}... in style, it would be different, and more welcoming (as opposed to the warning template that it is) and would include a link and an invitation message to wikinfo that states its acceptance of OR. I don't know if such a systematic method of diverting unwanted content from wikipedia to wikinfo would be welcomed here, but I think it might be... I also don't know of any policies or guidelines that would explicitly forbid it (i.e. a template that systematically links to an external and, in some views, competing, site).
A similar template might also be applied to systematic NPOV-violators, so long as their POV is "sympathetic" (this would be especially relevant for pseudoscience, etc. articles that are continually invaded by quacks (as I see it) but who would, because of the sympathetic-POV policy of wikinfo, not be violating policy (and infuriating NPOV sticklers) if they moved over into wikinfo's welcoming arms). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this fledgling idea. I anticipate an answer along the lines of "it'll be impossible", but the short time that it has taken me to write this will have paid off greatly if you think it might be possible, and if even only a few of the acerbic discussions might be avoided by a precipitous switch to wikinfo, where they might be welcomed as valued contributors. Thanks for your time! --Storkk (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- PS. If you would reply on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz speedy deletion edit
I would greatly appreciate your comment here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 19#Barbara Schwarz. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you may have not have noticed this, but... edit
...at:
The Episodes and Characters proposed decision pages second "parties urged" section
...you have voted both opposing and supporting the proposal. You supported on the 12th, and now on the 20th, you have voted oppose... Did you mean to strike out the earlier support, but merely forgot? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding pedophilia edit
With respect to users blocked due to offensive edits or advocacy contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fred, I don't know if you are aware of this, but I hoped you might comment on a big problem I have been having. For six months since the arbitration, I have been editing with very little conflict, and mostly creating new non-Starwood-related articles. I have added to and improved a lot of the other articles, mostly in non-controversial ways (like adding books and/or ISBN numbers to bibliographies and info to discographies of people who happened to have appeared at an ACE event), or to satisfy requests for citations. Perhaps I put some of this info under the wrong headings, calling something a reference when it should have been a note or put under "further reading", or whatever. But I have sincerely been trying to support the work I have done, do new work unrelated to the articles that were controversial, and avoid any conflicts.
However, two weeks ago Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn suddenly appeared, and proceeded on what I can only call a campaign to eliminate as much mention of ACE and it's events as possible. They began with a tagging spree reminiscent of the one by Mattisse and her sock puppets that started my problems before. My immediate response was to ask Thatcher for help and advice, but for some reason he would not respond to me for nearly a week. During that time, it turned out, he was talking to the three of them here [3] without even telling me this conversation was happening. I had asked him if there was still an advocate system, but he never answered me. (I'm not trying to slam Thatcher, I'm just pointing out that I've tried to deal with this without revert wars or other unpleasantness). Since then Pigman has opened discussions here [4] and elsewhere, all with no one telling me so I could respond, and he has a watchlist devoted just to my work.
In the past two weeks he and Kathryn have deleted material from at least thirty articles I've created or regularly edit, nominated five for deletion (two successfully, one not, two pending), and have made some frankly bizzare interpretations of Wikipedia rules. For instance, Pigman deleted mention of the Starwood Festival appearances from Paul Krassner's article, even though he has written two articles about Starwood, been quoted in High Times about it, and appeared at six out of the last ten. He claims that the event must not be important to Krassner because he doesn't mention it by name on his official bio, just as "a Neo-Pagan festival". Even when Paul Krassner himself wrote in to the talk page that it was important to him and why, Pigman has not returned this data. I believe he is hoping I will engage in a revert war, so he can call it aggressive editing and a violation of the arbitration. In fact, he has ALREADY accused me of that; I thnk it is clear that these three want to drive me and my work out of Wikipedia by any means. Another strange rule: Kathryn claims that since in the eighties ACE got permission to re-issue a handful of cassette tapes from Llewellyn, I am not allowed to edit ANY article by ANY author who has ever had a book published by Llewellyn, America's oldest occult publisher, even though I have never worked for nor received a penny from Llewellyn, and my work with ACE is totally voluntary and unpaid. They have changed the copy on the Jeff Rosenbaum article, too, so instead of "he has produced over 100 tapes and CDs" they say "produced and sold" although this is not true, and added "Through ACE, Rosenbaum produces cassette tapes and CDs of the artists who appear at ACE events, and markets them through the ACE website" as if they belong to and are marketed by Rosenbaum who merely takes advantage of the website to make money for himself. This is a lie, and IMO a violation of WP:Bio, and I have said so several times.
In spite of the failed attempts several months ago, which you commented on at the time, to merge the articles Starwood Festival, WinnterStar Symposium, Association for Consciousness Exploration and Jeff Rosenbaum, and even though the articles are expanded since then, they are trying to do it again. Worse, they delete the citations and references for paltry reasons, then delete the facts as uncited, then say the article isn't notable.
I don't know what to do. It's a gang-up of three against one, and I don't have the cadre they do to bully their way to whatever they want. On top of that, I'm afraid to do anything because of the accusations of violating the arbitration. I don't know what I can or can't do, and they claim I can't do anything at all. I desperately need some help. They've already deleted some articles, and they seem to be visiting every article I have ever created or edited, and consider ANY reference to these events no matter how well supported as undue weight or trivial. And any editor who says anything in my support gets confronted. What can I do? Rosencomet (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about asking for reopening of the original arbitration case and adding these new interested editors as parties? Fred Bauder (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. These are the same guys, except that WeniWidiWiki isn't involved this time. Unfortunately, most of the folks on my side back then seem to either have retired, or they've been blocked for being a sock-puppet. Not of mine; I've never used one. (For some reason, Mattisse never got blocked for her many sock-puppets.) I don't understand the rules, but I'd much rather be judged by my editing between the arbitration which ended in May and Dec. 14th when this campaign started. At this point, in spite of everything that's been said, they are acting like even internal links are improper, they reject the "third-party sources" that a lot of the arbitration was about as either "passing" references, or "walled garden" or any other hair-splitting thing Pigman can come up with. If I simply say "He is a frequent speaker at the Starwood Festival" and cite a non-ACE source, they say it's undue weight because he's appeared elsewhere and I didn't list it. If I supply a list of performance venues which include Starwood, they delete it as "listcruft"; yet I've read the description of Listcruft and it doesn't apply.
- Are THEY breaking any rules? Is this stalking, or creating a hostile environment, or in some other way improper? Is there any way to assert in what cases these mentions are appropriate and the constant deletion becomes vandalism? If I have to, I will find someone else to do the editing, but when would someone say to them "stop deleting this information; it violates no WP rule" and "these articles are each notable; stop proposing their merge"? Or must the same fight be fought over and over? Can an arbitration be opened on THEM and their behavior, with a stay on further controversial changes on the articles? I think THEY are ignoring the findings of the arbitration. THEY are "editing aggresively", and trying to bait or entrap me, or take advantage of my hands being supposedly tied to vandalize my editing.Rosencomet (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is getting worse, and I have no guidance. I tried to simply tell a few people who were involved in the last deletion nomination that a new one had opened. I got accused of canvassing, and the message was deleted from the talk pages. Paul Krassner commented on the talk page of his article and Pigman refused to AGF and believe he was who he said he was, and then accused me of canvassing HIM. How DOES the subject of an article get listened to about it? I really don't know what I AM allowed to do. Reading WP this and that doesn't help; most of them say they are guidelines and not carved in stone, yet I get threatened with "blockable offenses" and told I can't do something "even by the rules". How can three people be "mass messaging"? Thatcher said my biggest problem was that too few people are interested in the topics I edit, so I keep running into Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, and I need to get more editors interested in supporting me. How do I do that if I can't even inform them of the issue? Meanwhile, time is clicking away, and they delete my work too quickly for me to become known to new editors, and they ignore anything said in support of me anyway. Please help me.Rosencomet (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- As Rosencomet mentioned above, the individuals whose resumes he has been padding with publication lists etc. are almost all people who have appeared at his festival, a fact which he has been diligent in noting on those articles in the past, especially when he's the one who created them, as he often is. He does not consider this a conflict, and thinks that editing articles on people who appear at his festivals is less problematic than editing articles on his festivals. I don't think I'm alone in viewing this as flawed reasoning. I think that the other parties involved would be more than happy to see another arbitration case, as Rosencomet has very obviously failed to abide by the spirit of the last one, editing his autobiography heavily and promoting his festivals with diligence and zeal. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, Rosencomet has been blocked for 24 hours per WP:CANVASS by Pigman, who posted a request for a review of his block at AN/I. Avruchtalk 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- As can be seen by my comments on the Request for Arbitration Enforcement, I would love to have more eyes on this. I would also love to see Rosencomet provide any diffs that show wrongdoing or violation of policy on my part. He's been through an arbitration; he knows about diffs. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)