User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 December

ArbCom activity

The clerks have moved you to active on the Privatemusings case as well as for cases opened from now on. Please let us know if you want to be active on any other pending cases. There are three cases that were opened within the past couple of days, on which you haven't missed much yet if you choose to be activated on those. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan on voting in all open matters. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll update the listings in the morning (unless someone beats me to it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova ArbCom

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The committee received an email from Durova outlining her concerns about !!. I believe it predates the block but I may be mistaken. The email appeared to me to be general background rather than anything we were expected to answer. There was, to my recollection, no evidence in it that is not publicly available in the page history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The "secret evidence" which has been oversighted in one place still appears in the page history of Giano's Talkpage, so I'm going to ask you more specifically: Did you (and/or the committee) receive the report published by Giano from Durova prior to the block of User:!!? If so, you should recuse yourself from the ArbCom case. Isarig (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is as good a statement as any on your request. If Durova indeed sent the message to the Arbcom mailing list, rather than the Cybestalking list (or if someone from Cyberstalking forwarded it to Arbcom) would you have the entire Arbcom recuse? And for what reason? Failing to read one's email thoroughly, or even failing to stop someone doing something unwise because one failed to read one's email thoroughly, is not an actionable offense. Thatcher131 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it not a good statement on my request. The reason why anyone who recieved the message should recuse himslef is patently self obvious: It represents a huge conflict of interest for someone to rule on matters regarding that list while being a member of it. It is an interesting hypothetical question what we'd do if all theArbitrators were so conflciuted, but luckily we are not in that situation, as I know of at least one arbitrator who has stated he had not seen the "secret evidence" prior to the block. Isarig (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no "matters regarding that list" before the Arbitration committee; see the proposed decision, which is already in the voting phase. The existence of off-wiki means of communication, whether single email, email cc'd to many, IRC, MSN Chat, AOL IM, telephone calls, or carrier pigeon messages, is a) beyond Arbcom's jurisdiction, and b) irrelevant. Admins are expected to use good judgement in blocking and if they don't, they may find themselves in trouble. If someone uses bad judgement in blocking, and does so persistently, it matters not one iota whether that bad judgement arose from participation in a mailing list or chat session, or from some other motivation, such as nationalist pride or desire to protect a friend. Thatcher131 23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea that members of the arbcom-l mailing list, which includes all current members of the committee, must recuse from any matter where related correspondence was sent to arbcom-l is, frankly, ludicrous. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording of 9.1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

Hi there. I think you wrote the wording for the proposed principle 9.1 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision. The principle is here: "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors." . I was wondering if the wording could be clarified, as the current wording "at the expense of" could be interpreted two ways. Consider the sentence "Shell profits at the expense of the environment". If this sense of "at the expense of" is applied to principle 9.1, then it is saying the opposite of what I think you intended. Would something like "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors." work better? If you search for "parse" on the talk page of the proposed decision, you'll see a discussion there about it as well. Sorry for being pedantic about this, but I really struggled to get my head round the triple negative in that sentence (not, at the expense of, and undermine). Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but am unsure if the tweak you suggest is really an improvement. I'll sleep on it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not include actions that undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors."? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: TTN Arbitration case

Thanks for applying the brakes on what looked to be a rush towards a damaging decision.Kww (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes our unwillingness to consider content matters manifests itself in weird ways. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My thanks, too. You obviously understand where the editors who are critical of many of the episode and character articles are coming from. I hope that there are like-minded members of the AC. --Jack Merridew 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Decision

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) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron,

Thank you for your note.

It is not Wikipedia's role to publish new research, nor is it Wikipedia's role to set the record straight where mainstream academic or scientific thought may be wrong. Our role is to document what other, mainstream, reliable sources say. We do note controversies and alternative views but we characterize them as such. In that sense, Wikipedia follows scientific progress (and, for that matter, progress in other disciplines) but does not lead it. It is a limitation of what we do and how we work.

NPOV and its provisions regarding undue weight make us what we are, which is a general source of current consensus views on a wide variety of fields. We do not evaluate the facts of any controversy ab initio but rather document what other sources say.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

Hi, I'd like to have an IRC (preferably) or email discussion on the matter. Would you be interested in hearing me out? -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of old Arbitration Remedies

Regarding your comment here, you have a question. FYI ;) Anthøny 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, look up one section. :) Thatcher131 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)